Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HASTINGS PIER BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords]

DERBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next, at seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Constitution

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the proposals for constitutional development in Malta.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now state the constitutional changes proposed for Malta.

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take on the report of the Minister of State's recent visit to Malta.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I shall make a statement on this matter before the House rises for the. Summer Recess.

Mr. Wall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the House has given a Second Reading to the Cyprus Bill, there is bound to be pressure for constitutional advance in Malta, and may

we hope that the promised statement will give an indication of political advance for the Maltese people?

Mr. Macleod: It will cover the matters dealt with in Questions Nos. 1, 6 and 8.

Mr. Brockway: While welcoming the announcement that a statement is to be made before the end of the Session, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the passing of the Cyprus Bill on Tuesday, whether he will refrain from making any declaration that Malta is never to have self-determination, recognising that the people of that island are demanding independence?

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now state his proposals for introducing representative government in Malta; if he will now formally declare that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant independence to Malta; when he expects that Malta will achieve independence; and what plans he has for assisting in the island's future economic development, following the report made by the Minister of State as a result of his recent visit.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As regards the first three parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to Questions Nos. 1, 6 and 8. As regards economic development, my right hon. and noble Friend was able to see something of the progress being made under the five-year Development Plan, to which Her Majesty's Government are contributing £29¼ million. The plan, which was introduced last autumn, is not due for review until next year.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the failure to bring about a conference between himself and representatives of the Maltese people is due to the fact that he has not made a categorical promise of independence for Malta by an early date? Will he proceed to do this and then ask for a conference of the Maltese representatives with himself?

Mr. Macleod: I think we can discuss the answer to that better on my statement next week. No one who has examined the position in Malta over the last few months, and the intransigence which has been shown in at least one quarter there, really believes that it is


the fault of Her Majesty's Government that we have not so far been able to arrange a settlement.

Civil Service Pensions

Mr. Houghton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the reasons for the delay in granting pensions increases to retired Malta civil servants; and whether he will now instruct the Government of Malta to make proposals to the staff association concerned.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery): Representations made in February for increases in the level of bonus paid to pensioners were considered by a special Committee set up for the purpose. Representatives of the pensioners appeared before this Committee. The Committee's recommendations are now being considered by the Government of Malta.

Mr. Houghton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now instruct the Government of Malta to place on the agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Whitley Council the recommendations of Sir Arton Wilson's report of 1956 relating to pensionable status for clerk-typists.

Mr. J. Amery: No, Sir. The agenda for meetings of the Malta Government Joint Council are a matter for agreement between the Official and Staff Sides of that Council.

Mr. Houghton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there seems to be some breakdown in the relations between the Government of Malta and the representatives of the Civil Service staffs? Why are these matters conducted at arms length? Why is there difficulty in discussing on a Whitley Council in Malta matters which are quite appropriate for discussion on a Whitley Council in this country?

Mr. Amery: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this matter has had a long and difficult history. First, there was the Wilson Commission and then the Water-field Commission. Since then Mr. Elwood was appointed to examine and make recommendations. His recommendations have been submitted to the Malta Government and have been applied without prejudice to any subsequent arbitration or negotiations on individual scales. I understand that Mr. Elwood is currently engaged on an

examination of the grading structure and has submitted an interim report. Until this has been considered, I should not like to be drawn further.

Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Ltd.

Sir P. Agnew: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) how much money he has advanced to Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Ltd. under the terms of the Financial Agreement of 11th September, 1959; and, of the amount involved, how much Messrs. Bailey have spent on the modification and improvement of the fixed assets and services of the dockyard in accordance with Clause 2 (a) of the Financial Agreement, and how much on any other purpose;

(2) he will furnish a statement giving the dates on which he has advanced sums of money to Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Ltd., the amount in each case, and the purpose for which the company borrowed the money; and if he will state the extent in each case to which the money concerned has been spent in carrying out that purpose.

Mr. Iain Macleod: With permission, I will circulate the Answer, which contains a number of figures, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir P. Agnew: Will my right hon. Friend give a specific answer as to whether any of the money that has been advanced to Messrs. Bailey (Malta) Ltd. has been advanced otherwise than in accordance with Clause 2 (a) of the Financial Agreement? There is a great deal of public concern on this matter.

Mr. Macleod: My Answer, which includes a considerable number of figures, clears up any anxiety there may be on that matter. Of course, with regard to the expenditure of the sums, the accounting procedure is not yet finished.

Sir P. Agnew: Could my right hon. Friend say, in particular, whether any money has been advanced to this firm in respect of its financing of a pension fund? If so, how is that provided for in the Financial Agreement?

Mr. Macleod: No, not for that purpose, but my hon. Friend is quite right—there have been considerable and prolonged discussions between the Government and Messrs. Bailey on the question of pension funds.

Following is the Answer:
£1,35,74 has so far been advanced. On 6th October, 1959, an initial advance of £1,711,000 was made, comprising £1,200,000 for working capital, £230,000 for part payment for the moveable plant and machinery taken over from the Admiralty, and £281,000 for additional plant and machinery. Since then a further £124,574 has been made available, under Clause 2 (a) of the Financial Agreement, for the modification and improvement of the fixed assets and services of the dockyard. This sum is made up of advances of £61,478, £11,500. £31,773 and £19,823 made respectively on the 14th December. 1959, 29th January. 17th June and 15th July, 1960. With regard to the expenditure of these sums, the relevant accounting procedures are not yet completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA

Civil Service (Salaries Commission)

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give an assurance that the recently-appointed Salaries Commission for the Civil Service in East Africa will make recommendations for the revision of salary of all civil servants in Kenya on an entirely non-racial basis, and will not restrict its recommendations to expatriate officers only.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Commission will not restrict its inquiries in Kenya to expatriate officers only, but I cannot of course anticipate the scope of its recommendations.

Mr. Clark: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply? This point caused some misapprehension in Kenya.

Congo (African Refugees)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what preparations have been made in East Africa for the reception of African refugees from the Congo.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Very few African refugees from the Congo have arrived in East Africa. Like the European refugees, they are being accommodated with their families either in the camps arranged for all refugees or in Government buildings.

Mr. Goodhart: As the number of these African refugees is likely to increase, can my right hon. Friend say whether the cost of caring for them will

have to be borne by the local governments or whether the British Government will make a contribution?

Mr. Macleod: At the moment there are only two or three families involved. These are mainly African wives of Belgian citizens, so the problem envisaged by my hon. Friend is not one that at the moment is arising. There has, of course, been some influx back and forth from Ruanda into Uganda.

Expatriate Local Government Officers (Pension Funds)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies Whether he contemplates taking action to protect the pension funds of expatriate local government employees in East Africa.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The undertakings by Her Majesty's Government concerning the protection of pensions set out in Colonial Paper No. 306 relate only to members of the Overseas Civil Service for whom I have special responsibility. The question of any special protection for the pension funds of local government officers who are not members of the Overseas Service can be considered only in the context of a general constitutional settlement.

Mr. Goodhart: As my right hon. Friend is considering the future of the Overseas Civil Service, in East Africa in particular, will he also give a thought to the future of the expatriate local government employees who make a considerable contribution to the welfare of these countries?

Mr. Macleod: I understand that point, but successive Governments have maintained the distinction implicit in my main Answer. I cannot give an undertaking to vary it.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL TERRITORIES

Overseas Civil Service

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the present feelings of insecurity in the Colonial Civil Service and their increasing reliance on the guarantees contained in Colonial Paper No. 306, 1954, he will take steps to define more clearly which officers are eligible to join


Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service, and to clear up the anomalies in eligibility which at present occur in Kenya.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Eligibility for membership of the Overseas Civil Service is determined by Special Regulations made by the Secretary of State. In applying these Regulations to Kenya there has been difficulty in determining the domicile of some officers. I am taking up with the East African Governments the question of the uniform interpretation of these Regulations and will inform the hon. Member when the question is settled.

Mr. Clark: May I ask my right hon. Friend to press on with this definition as early as possible? The Civil Service Association of Kenya is quite unaware of any clear definition, and there is a great deal of difference between the categories of officers in Tanganyika who are entitled to be members of the Overseas Civil Service and those of the officers in Kenya.

Mr. Macleod: This is a Kenya problem. We have put forward a solution acceptable to the other East African Territories, but not, so far, to Kenya. We are still discussing it with them.

Sir H. Oakshott: In view of the pretty wide degree of insecurity in the Civil Service in Kenya at the moment, when my right hon. Friend 'has reached his conclusion in regard to it—about which he promised to write to my hon. Friend below the Gangway—could he make the conclusion public, in the OFFICIAL REPORT or something like that?

Mr. Macleod: Certainly. I will find some way of doing that.

B.B.C. (Schools Transcription Service)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the grant to the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund for the Colonial Schools Transcription Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation has been withdrawn.

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities are to be provided to replace the Colonial Schools Transcription Service, hitherto financed through the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what amounts have been paid out of Colonial Development and Welfare Funds to the British Broadcasting Corporation in respect of the Colonial Schools Transcription Service; and if he will reconsider his decision not to renew this grant.

Miss Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations have been received by his Department for the continuation of the British Broadcasting Corporation Colonial Schools Transcription Unit; and whether he will give an undertaking that these shall be carried on in the future.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The scheme was designed at its inception in 1952 to last for a limited period with the aim of encouraging broadcasting services in Colonial territories to build up their own school broadcasts. The grant was renewed in October, 1955, on the explicit understanding, which was communicated to Colonial Governments in 1956, that Colonial Development and Welfare assistance would not be continued after the autumn of 1958. The scheme was extended for one further year until 31st March, 1960, and in February. 1960, a grant was made to secure full rights, where they did not already exist, in the best of the programmes and to transfer them to long-playing records. Total expenditure from C.D. and W. funds on the scheme between 1952 and 1960 amounts to £95,850. I am satisfied that the scheme has made an effective contribution, and a number of broadcasting stations in Colonial Territories now have some form of educational broadcasting.
No Colonial Government has made representations to me about the longstanding decision to terminate C.D. and W. assistance, but I have so far received two expressions of regret that the unit's work is not continuing.

Mr. Mayhew: Why, since the Minister pays tribute to the good work of this unit, is he now proposing in effect to close it down? Is he aware that this decision means that no new recordings will be made for those programmes? This means in fact that these links that we have with these colonial teachers and school children through this transcription service will effectively be broken.


What could be more economical and effective than carrying on this transcription service for the school services in the Colonies?

Mr. Macleod: As my Answer makes clear, there is nothing new in this decision which in fact was taken in 1956, and in view of the interest and questions on it I have been very closely into it myself. This was always intended as a pump-priming operation, and I believe that the use of C.D. and W. funds for that purpose was right. What I have said is that C.D. and W. funds will not be available. It does not necessarily follow that it will not be possible, in one way or another, for some form of service to be continued. For example, we are in touch with the B.B.C. on that matter.

Miss Vickers: I recognise that many of these Colonies now have their own systems, some of which are quite good. In view of the fact that this scheme has been extended on more than one occasion, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will not think about this again? It is essential that these Colonies should have further information from this country, and, with great respect to those long,-playing records, I do not think that they are necessarily up to date, and that is what we want—up-to-date factual information. I should have thought that education was the outstanding need in these territories at the present time. Anything that we can do to help will be beneficial

Mr. Macleod: I will certainly look at the point. I should be less than Frank with the House if I held out any hope that help can be continued from C.D. and W. funds. For the reasons that I have given, I do not believe that that is a proper use of C.D. and W. funds.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The Minister says that he has not received representations from Colonial Governments to continue this service. Has his attention been drawn to a letter in The Times from the Director of the Tanganyika Broadcasting Corporation in which he points out that, at the request of the Government of Tanganyika, and therefore, I take it, with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, the Tanganyika Broadcasting Corporation has been asked to

double its schools output? How, asks the director, are we to do it without a B.B.C. colonial schools unit, or something like it? As the decision to make this a pump-priming operation was taken before the Government initiated its new Commonwealth education programme, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that this is essential to the carrying out of that programme?

Mr. Macleod: I feel that these matters are very important. This service is recorded here and then sent to, and used in, those countries. About 600 programmes—and the very best of them—have been recorded and will be available, and all the fees have been paid. I think that they will be of very great help indeed, and many Colonial Territories have acknowledged that in their letters to me on that matter.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dugdale.

Mr. Mayhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) before the hon. Member rose on his point of order.

Mr. Dugdale: Looking at the matter again, will the Colonial Secretary have regard to the fact that, owing to the reduced number of territories for which he is responsible, there should be a great deal more C.D. and W. money to go round? Will he have regard to this fact in considering whether it can be used for this service?

Mr. Macleod: It works both ways, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well from his experience, calls on C.D. and W. funds increase all the time, but I will take note of the anxiety on both sides of the House on this matter.

Directorate of Overseas Surveys

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that the map section of his Department is sufficiently large to carry out the increased duties required of it since 1st June, 1960.

Mr. J. Amery: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Directorate of Overseas Surveys can meet all reasonable demands made of it.

Mr. Channon: In that case, can my hon. Friend assure us that in future, when maps are promised in a White Paper, they will be available in time for hon. Members to consider them?

Mr. Amery: It was not the fault of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys, because it was not actually asked to do so. It was thought that it would be more convenient for Members to have smaller scale maps which could be held in the hand and which yet showed a good deal of detail. To give my hon. Friend some idea of the size of the large-scale maps—for the Akrotiri sovereign base area there are 10 sheets of large-scale maps, over 80 air photographs, which can only be fully understood with the help of a stereoscope, and three pages of verbal descriptive matter. One set of photographs and descriptive matter would together weigh 30 1b.—heavier than an ordinary fish extracted out of Lake Kelvedon.

Mr. Channon: In that case, perhaps my hon. Friend will explain why they were promised in the White Paper, since there was no intention of carrying out the promise?

Mr. Amery: The bound copies of the maps have been laid in the Library. What was promised in advance of the debate was the small maps which were in the hands of hon. Members.

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the annual cost of administering the map section of his Department.

Mr. J. Amery: The estimated gross cost of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys in 1960–61 is £793,200.

Mr. Channon: Would not my hon. Friend agree that that enormous estimate is sufficient to cover the cost of producing maps for hon. Members before two o'clock in the afternoon on the day of a debate?

Mr. Amery: I do not think that the maps my hon. Friend has in mind would have been of great assistance to him in the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA

Non-racial Secondary Girls' School

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether special

finance will now be provided for the building of a multi-racial girls' secondary school in Kenya.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I understand that an ad hoc committee is exploring the possibility of building a non-racial secondary girls' school, but that detailed plans are not yet complete. The Kenya Government are very willing to approach outside sources for special finance, on the assumption that these plans are satisfactory, but cannot provide capital help themselves without deferring other important projects.

Mr. Williams: I accept what my right hon. Friend says, but surely it is complete hypocrisy to go on talking about establishing a multi-racial society unless something can be done in the most fundamental of all services, namely, education?

Mr. Macleod: I hope that my Answer makes it clear that I welcome very much this imaginative approach which has come from all races to the problem of education, as exemplified by this proposal, but I think that my Answer is also the right one as far as the finance is concerned. It is obviously necessary for Kenya to study it first.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: In view of the welcome the Secretary of State gives to this very imaginative and important proposal, will not he consider making a grant out of C.D. and W. funds to help towards achieving it?

Mr. Macleod: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, there is always great pressure on C.D. and W. reserves, and any proposal has to be considered in the light of all the other claims. I think that Kenya should look at this first. If they have any proposal to put to me later as a result of that, I will look at it.

Illegal Oath Ceremonies

Lord Balniel: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the recent recrudescence of Mau Mau activities in Kenya, and the detention of persons suspected of initiating oath-taking ceremonies.

Mr. Iain Macleod: During the last few months the Kenya authorities have been


investigating reports of a large increase in illegal oath ceremonies, accompanied by intimidation and extortion of money by certain Kikuyu in the Central and Rift Valley Provinces and in Nairobi. The Governor decided, on the advice of his Ministers, that the time had come when protection must be given to the victims of known instigators, under the "fire-brigade" powers specially designed to deal with a situation of this kind and to prevent its deterioration. Accordingly, regulations were made under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance to control collections and to enable restriction orders to be made. Orders have been served upon seventy-two of the main organisers who are so far known. They are being restricted, not detained, on Lamu Island in the Coast Province.

Lord Balniel: I appreciate the firmness with which this trouble is being handled by the authorities on the spot, but may I ask my right hon. Friend if he has any information about whether these troubles are being organised from the centre, or whether they are the purely individual acts of ex-detainees?

Mr. Macleod: There is no evidence at all—I particularly checked on that point—of central direction.

Mr. Stonehouse: Can the Colonial Secretary say what arrangements are being made to allow those in detention to appeal against the detention?

Mr. Macleod: With respect, I make the point again. They are not being detained. They are being restricted, and there is a very big difference, as the hon. Gentleman knows, between the two.

Mr. Stonehouse: What is the difference?

Mr. Macleod: They are free to move within the area; they are not confined in prison; their families can be with them, and they are paid a certain amount of money. There are considerable differences, indeed. I am sorry that I was led away. I come back to the original point. The answer is, "Yes". There are arrangements for appeal to a tribunal, and the object of the appeal, wherever possible, must be to remove the order.

Constitution

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has given to the letter from Sir Ferdinand Cavendish-Bentinck, ex-Speaker of the Kenya Legislative Council, on the subject of constitutional advance in the Colony.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Sir Ferdinand asked for an opportunity of discussing with me some of the repercussions of the main proposals emerging from the Lancaster House Conference, to which, he said, he had no intention of seeking amendments. I had a talk with him on 13th July.

Mr. Brockway: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance, not only that the proposals of the Lancaster House Conference will be implemented and that he will resist pressure to withdraw them, but that when there is an African majority in the Legislative Council next year their democratic rights will not be interfered with?

Mr. Macleod: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I have always made that clear and Sir Ferdinand accepted it fully. The second part of his supplementary question seems to me to go much wider. I am not clear what he has in mind. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will table a Question.

Land

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about his proposals for the maintenance of stable land values and development of farm lands in Kenya.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies of 20th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) and the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse).

Mr. Wall: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the helpful replies which he made yesterday, may I ask him whether he is aware that the total sum referred to, about £8 million, gives ground for anxiety? Will he agree that the smaller the fund the more likelihood there is of pressure for selling land? Has my right hon. Friend considered


the memorandum submitted to him by the Kenya National Farmers' Union on the matter?

Mr. Macleod: I have certainly consider the memorandum of the Kenya National Farmers' Union on the amount of money to be made available. The Kenya Ministers most concerned are working out their plans. This matter is at the moment being discussed in the Legislative Council in Kenya, and the Kenya Ministers will be returning for further discussions with the Government.

Mr. Marquand: Is it still envisaged that this plan should operate for three years only, or is the right hon. Gentleman still open to receive representations on this matter?

Mr. Macleod: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman asked that question. I think that there is some misunderstanding about the period of three years. This period is limited to the currency of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. It has nothing to do with any political or economic considerations in Kenya or elsewhere.

Sir H. Oakshott: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that, if the economy of Kenya is to be stabilised and then is to go ahead, the biggest problem of all is that of the stability of land values and the security of land titles, and that he will have the support of everyone who has the interests of the whole of Kenya and all its races at heart in restoring confidence in this aspect of its affairs?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure that that is true. I think that in particular the question of land titles bulks very large. We are trying to resolve it.

Mr. Marquand: In view of the serious shortage of land for large numbers of Africans and the very small holdings which have resulted from some of the consolidation schemes, may we take it that the idea promulgated by the Kenya Government that farms of 50 acres be provided when land in the White Highlands is sold is also not an absolutely firm figure and that the figure could be smaller than 50 acres?

Mr. Macleod: The Kenya Government have plans for what one might call yeomen and peasant farmers. Those two together will take care of the point the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SOMALILAND

Expatriate Officers (Pensions)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the increases of pensions of expatriate officers to bring them up to the level of the United Kingdom Pensions Increase Act, 1959, were made before the grant of independence to British Somaliland.

Mr. J. Amery: I regret that Ministers of the Somaliland Government did not agree before independence to legislate such increases.
It is proposed therefore to request Her Majesty's Ambassador in Mogadishu to invite the attention of the Government of the Somali Republic to the provisions of the United Kingdom Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959. It will be represented to that Government that it would be equitable to grant similar increases to former expatriate members of the public service of the Somaliland Protectorate.

Mr. Tilney: Is my hon. Friend aware that in answer to a letter written in mid-May by the East and Central African Colonial Service Pensioners' Association to his office, a reply was received on 25th May that the question was under urgent consideration with the Somaliland Government which at that time was a grant-aided Protectorate? Is he aware that I myself wrote to the Minister of State about it long before Somaliland obtained her independence? Can he say what action was taken by his office in meetings with representatives from the Somaliland Protectorate before the grant of independence, and does he not feel that this inaction has a bad effect on the morale of the Overseas Civil Service elsewhere, other than in Somaliland?

Mr. Amery: Representations were made to the Somaliland Ministers, but in the short time available before independence it was not possible for them to introduce legislation which in their view might have led to misunderstanding or criticism.

Oral Answers to Questions — SARAWAK

Education

Mr. Oram: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportions of children of school age of the Chinese,


Malay and Iban communities, respectively, of Sarawak are receiving full-time education; and how much of the cost in each case is being met from public funds, and how much from private sources.

Mr. J. Amery: A very approximate estimate, pending the result of this year's census, is 85 per cent. of the Chinese, and 65 per cent. of the Malay, Iban and other groups combined. Public funds meet roughly 60 per cent. of the recurrent cost for Chinese and 85 per cent. for Malays and Ibans.

Mr. Oram: Do not these figures show that the Chinese have better educational facilities than the other two communities and that this is largely due to their own voluntary efforts? As there are signs that this leads to resentment among the other communities, can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that, in seeking to avoid an increase in this resentment, he will pursue a policy of equalising up to the Chinese level and provide multiracial schools rather than put any kind of restraint upon the development of Chinese education?

Mr. Amery: The figures show that the greater proportion of Government aid goes to public aid for schools for the Malays and Ibans—85 per cent. for the Ibans as against 60 per cent. for the Chinese. The main obstacle among the Malayan and Iban communities is the shortage of teachers.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Colonial Regulations

Mr. Thornton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies since what date Colonial Regulations have been freely available for inspection at the Colonial Secretariat in Hong Kong.

Mr. J. Amery: I will find out the date and inform the hon. Member.

Mr. Thornton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend informed the House last week that these Regulations are freely available? However, I have a copy of a letter from the Hong Kong Colonial Secretary dated 10th December, in reply to an inquiry by an Australian accountant resident in Hong Kong, which states:
I am directed to refer to your letter of 8th December"— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could keep in order by summarising the effect of the letter.

Mr. Thornton: This reply clearly indicated that copies of the Regulations were not available for public inspection. In view of that, will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter? I will send him a copy of the correspondence. If he finds that what I have said is right, will he ensure that this House receives accurate information and not information which misrepresents the position?

Mr. Amery: I will certainly study carefully any correspondence which the hon. Gentleman likes to send me.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Migration to United Kingdom

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what replies he has received from the West Indian Government to his appeals to them to restrict the migration of West Indians to this country.

Mr. J. Amery: My right hon. Friend discussed migration with West Indian Ministers during his recent visit. In general he found them fully aware of the problems involved, and very ready to co-operate with us by continuing their efforts to reduce the flow of migrants to this country.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: In view of the recent figures which we have had about migration from the West Indies, will not my hon. Friend agree that these discussions have had no practical effect in limiting migration? Does he realise what a desperate and even dangerous problem will face us in many large towns in this country as a result of the present flood of immigration if we should get only a moderate degree of unemployment? Will he consider whether our present policy of relying solely on the efforts of the West Indian Government to discourage emigration are adequate?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said last week, we need to approach with deep caution and care any proposal to change or depart from the traditional open door policy of this country.

Mr. H. Hynd: While agreeing that we have to approach this matter with caution and care, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that only yesterday in one of Her Majesty's courts I had to deal with a Jamaican who had been arrested but was fund unfit to plead and was therefore sent to an institution where he probably will be kept for the rest of his life at the expense of British taxpayers? Must this go on?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

United National Independence Party

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what restrictions are now imposed by the Government of Northern Rhodesia on the United National Independence Party; and when they will be withdrawn.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Northern Rhodesia Government has imposed restrictions on the United National Independence Party only in the Western Province, where local branches have been declared unlawful. Some members of the party's National Executive have been restricted from entering that Province. The restrictions will be withdrawn when it is considered possible to do so without prejudicing public security.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these restrictions encourage extremists and extremism and handicap the moderate leaders of U.N.I.P.? Surely it would be to the advantage of peace and order in that area of Northern Rhodesia if the responsible members of the National Executive Committee of U.N.I.P. were allowed to go there?

Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for you to use your influence among Members on both sides of the House to stop the sloppy practice of using initials all the time?

Mr. Speaker: I would rather like to get on. Sometimes initials are shorter than words.

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) will not, of course, expect me to agree with what he said. I am convinced that these measures—nobody was detained—have

proved to be an effective use of the fire-brigade powers. I am quite certain that if we had not had that legislation an emergency would have had to be declared. I think that this is eloquent proof of the value of this precaution.

Mr. Marquand: In view of the disastrous events in the Congo, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is better in British territories in Central Africa at the present time to consult with the elected and chosen leaders of democratic parties wherever they may be found, whether in Northern Rhodesia or Southern Rhodesia, and not to lock them up in prison?

Mr. Macleod: I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by the words "lock them up in prison". I made it quite clear that under these regulations nobody has been detained without trial, so that does not arise. I believe that the restrictions avoided an immensely dangerous situation following the death of Mrs. Burton, and that we averted a very great tragedy indeed by the action taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Constitutional Commission

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet able to announce the terms of reference of the Constitutional Commission on Uganda and give details of its composition.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Stonehouse: When the right hon. Gentleman determines the terms of reference, will he include the necessity of maintaining the unity of Uganda and breaking away from the feudal institutions which have too great an influence in that country?

Mr. Macleod: The object of the Commission and its terms of reference will be to study the form of Government most appropriate for a self-governing Uganda. I do not want to prejudice either the terms of reference or the recommendations of the Commission.

Sir P. Agnew: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Her Majesty's Government have absolute obligations by treaty to the kingdoms situated in


Uganda? Will he, on no account, give his countenance to any constitution that will give an elected assembly in the centre power to vary the constitution of any kingdom against the wishes of the monarch and people of that kingdom?

Mr. Macleod: That is a slightly different point, but it is because I have been so concerned with the difficult relations that we know exist between what we can call the traditional elements in Uganda and the others, that I have set up this Constitutional Commission, which does not prejudice the fact that elections are to be held early next year. But it is of great importance that we find the right form of government for Uganda in the future, and it is to this end that the Commission will direct its activities.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMEROONS

Administration

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the administrative arrangements for the Trust Territories of 'the Northern and Southern Cameroons following Nigerian independence in October, 1960; and what steps are being taken to retain an adequate number of United Kingdom personnel to ensure a smooth transfer of administration when the results of the United Nations plebiscites finally come to be implemented.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Sir Percy Wyn-Harris has been appointed Administrator of the Northern Cameroons and will take up office during September. The Northern Regional Government has seconded staff for the district administration of the territory and is continuing to provide other services on repayment. The Southern Cameroons already has a separate administration comparable to that of a Region in Nigeria and, as I informed the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on 5th April, the Nigerian Federal Government has agreed to lend staff (including overseas officers) to enables services to be maintained in the territory. Additional staff are also being recruited from this country.
I am very grateful for the assistance of both the Federal and Regional Governments.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that my information is that there is a real danger of a breakdown of administration in the Southern Cameroons? Is he aware that I have information that within a month or two there may be no magistrates' department in the Southern Cameroons; that there may be only two doctors and a few competent nurses, and that the public works department may be left without engineers? Will the look into this seriously to make sure that, when the people of the Southern Cameroons take their decision under the United Nations plebiscite, there may be sufficient administration to carry the transfer through smoothly?

Mr. Macleod: We are doing everything we can to fill the needs to Which the hon. Member has drawn attention. There are a number of vacancies in the Southern Cameroons. It is difficult to recruit the necessary staff, but we will do everything we can so that When the time comes we shall have an efficient administration.

Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the acute state of anarchy which prevails in the neighbouring state of the Cameroun Republic? Will he make sure that that anarchy does not spread across the border to the British Cameroons?

Mr. Macleod: We have undertaken that after this period in October when the Nigerian ordinary troops are no longer available we shall send a British battalion, if necessary, to the Southern Cameroon's.

Mr. Marquand: In view of the discussion we had on the Nigeria Bill and the large number of Questions there have been on the Order Paper on this subject of helping emerging territories and territories likely to become independent, will the Secretary of State make a statement to the House on his general conclusions on this matter before the House rises?

Mr. Macleod: I am working very hard on the matter and hope to be able to make a statement, but I cannot promise that I shall do so.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: In view of the seriousness of the situation in the Southern Cameroons, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter before the House rises for the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Commonwealth Citizens (Deportation)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards his declared intention of seeking powers to deport people from Commonwealth countries who are convicted of crimes.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am keeping this matter under review, but at present I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) on 17th March last.

Mr. Hynd: Is the Home Secretary aware that anyone going from this country to a Commonwealth country and breaking the law there is, quite rightly, liable for deportation? Is he aware that many magistrates in this country would welcome similar powers here?

Mr. Butler: I do not think the ultimate power would lie with the magistrates, even if cases may be referred by them. If it were done, the ultimate power would lie with the Secretary of State— —

Mr. Hynd: Who could recommend?

Mr. Butler: It would be a matter of reference. I am aware of the situation as broadly outlined by the hon. Member, but from consultations we have had with our fellow Governments in some of these territories the view has not been unanimous.

Disciplinary Tribunals

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the recommendations contained in paragraph 45 of the Departmental report on the powers of subpoena of disciplinary tribunals, whether he is satisfied that the list of disciplinary bodies at present lacking express statutory powers, contained in appendix B.2 to the report, is complete; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Appendix B does not purport to be a complete list of bodies that

might possibly be described as disciplinary tribunals; but in so far as it deals with disciplinary tribunals of the statutory bodies set up to regulate the conduct of professions, my right hon. Friend has no reason to think that it is not complete.

Mr. Ginsburg: While thanking the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that it could be argued that the disciplinary tribunals set up under the Agricultural Marketing Acts could, under the terms of the Simonds Committee's Report, be given the power to subpoena witnesses? Is not this a very deplorable recommendation and a strong reason why the House should have an opportunity of debating this very controversial Report?

Mr. Renton: There are various bodies which could be described as disciplinary tribunals, including, as the hon. Member suggested, those under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, but this Committee was concerned with disciplinary tribunals which concern professional conduct, and from that point of view the list appears to be complete.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that we ought to have, or ought to have had, an opportunity to debate the Simonds Committee's Report? Although I realise that we cannot be told about work for next Session, will he bear in mind that this is a very important Report and that we ought to have had a chance to discuss it in the House?

Prisons, Bristol and Exeter (Medical Staff)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of the medical staff at each of the Bristol and Exeter prisons, and the number of prisoners allocated to each doctor; and what provision is made for the mental health treatment of the men, in view of the fact that a variety of problems exist and that the need for treatment is greater than among the general public.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): At Bristol, with about 400 prisoners, there is one full-time senior medical officer, one full-time senior psychologist—both of whom have certain responsibilities at other prisons—


and one part-time medical officer. At Exeter, with about 470 prisoners, there is one part-time medical officer; the medical officer from Dartmoor attends regularly; and the senior medical officer from Bristol visits at intervals. Prisoners are not allocated to a particular medical officer. At both establishments prisoners are referred to outside consultants as may be necessary. Prisoners requiring major psychotherapy are transferred to prisons with special facilities.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my information is that the medical men employed in prisons are overworked and that some have to attend at two or three prisons? If that is so, will he take steps to remedy the position?

Mr. Vosper: The medical men at all prisons work very hard. I have met many of them recently. I should not like to suggest that prisoners are receiving inadequate medical attention. In fact, the ratio in many prisons is better than it is in the Health Service.

Miss Bacon: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a need for review of the prison medical service generally? Since there is about to be a vacancy among the Prison Commissioners, would he consider the appointment of a Commissioner with medical qualifications so that his services could be available to the Prison Commission in this very valuable part of prison life?

Mr. Vosper: We already have a Director of Medical Services in the Prison Commission who occupies a position of some standing. I do not think that the transfer to the rank of Commissioner would achieve anything. Although, on that and the previous supplementary question, I am in agreement that in the prison service they have their problems, on the whole I do not think that they can be accused of not fulfilling their obligations.

Prisoners (Deaths of Relatives)

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why a person, aged 19 years, still awaiting sentence, was not allowed out of prison to attend his father's funeral, details of which have been forwarded; and what are the regulations concerning this.

Mr. Vosper: At present, convicted prisoners who are ineligible or unsuitable for parole may be taken under escort to see dying relatives, as was done in this case, but not to funerals. My right hon. Friend is considering whether in future, subject to reasonable availability of escorts in a particular case, this rule should be relaxed.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While thanking my right hon. Friend for what he has said, may I ask whether he appreciates that, at a time when millions of pounds are being spent on prison reform and buildings, not to allow this young man to attend his father's funeral, when in the result he was only placed on probation, might well warp his whole outlook in coming out of prison?

Mr. Vosper: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend, but this is dependent on the availability of escorts and an escort was provided when the young man's father was dying. The Home Secretary will see if he can relax the rule further to cover funerals as well.

Registered Clubs, Carlisle

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for the initiation of registered clubs he has sanctioned in the Carlisle district during the five years up to 31st December, 1959, under the provisions of Section 77 of the Licensing Act, 1953; whether he is satisfied that the provisions of this Section, which forbid a registered club to deal in intoxicating liquor without first obtaining his consent in writing, should apply exclusively to Carlisle and the adjacent parts of Cumberland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Vosper: During the period in question authority has been given under Section 77 of the Licensing Act, 1953, for the supply of intoxicating liquor in five registered clubs and thirteen other clubs have been informed that authority will be given as soon as they are duly registered. The provisions of Section 77 derive from the Secretary of State's statutory responsibility for the control of the supply of liquor in the Carlisle State Management District and could not suitably be applied elsewhere.

Dr. Johnson: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that these powers, which have served no social purpose whatsoever in Carlisle for the last forty years, could be more usefully applied to other districts where there are problems, such as Stepney and Soho? Why keep them in Carlisle when other places need them far more?

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend has other proposals for dealing with the clubs problem in many districts. I do not think his exercise of the powers in Carlisle in recent years has been restrictive to general club interests.

Women Prisoners (Segregation)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to remedy the difficulties in the segregation of different categories of prisoners in women's prisons at the present time.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to her Question on 12th May.

Mrs. Butler: Does the Home Secretary appreciate that, while his proposals for the transfer of women from Holloway to other establishments are awaited with very great interest, in the meantime, women prisoners on remand in Holloway, some of them under 21, and some of whom may not subsequently be convicted, have to be shut up in their cells at 4 o'clock in the afternoon in order to keep them from contact with convicted prisoners? As the right hon. Gentleman in a previous reply to me indicated that this reorganisation scheme would not solve the problem, can he say what he is going to do to make conditions for women on remand more tolerable?

Mr. Butler: We are trying to do what we can for women in Holloway. I will certainly bear in mind the hon. Lady's points in looking at future policy.

Miss Bacon: How long will it be before the women are moved from Holloway, and how long will it be before the women in the north of England are in buildings other than those in which male prisoners are also housed?

Mr. Butler: It depends on reaching the final settlement of new establishments, with which we are pressing ahead as far as we can.

Victims of Crimes of Violence (Compensation)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now received the report of the Working Party which has been studying the problems of compensating the victims of crimes of personal violence; and whether he will make a statement on the nature of the report and the Government's conclusions arising from it.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the Working Party on compensation for victims of violent crimes.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Working Party's report is in an advanced stage of preparation, but it will not be possible for me to make any statement before the Recess.

Mr. Prentice: While appreciating that the Report has not yet been finalised, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a workable scheme of State insurance for the victims of criminal assaults could be introduced at a cost of about £200,000 per year, which is less than I d. per year per head of the whole of the population? Does he think it likely that the Government will have positive proposals to bring before the House early in the new Session?

Mr. Butler: I am not sure about the timing, but I hope to receive the report during the Recess. Meanwhile, I would rather not go into details, because there are considerable complications in the scheme, but I should not have set up the Working Party if I had not been keen to get a report.

Mrs. Castle: Will the Home Secretary give the House an assurance that, if the Working Party produces a practicable scheme, the Government will implement it? Is he not aware that I have recently sent him details of the very tragic case of Mrs. Gallacher, of Blackburn, whose husband was the victim of the pawnshop murder recently, and who has made a desperate appeal to me for help? I referred her to the Home Secretary, and all he could give her was sympathy. Is it not time that something practical was done to help the victims of these crimes?

Mr. Butler: That is precisely why, when I first came to the Home Office,


I took an interest in this subject, following upon Miss Margery Fry's ideas. I cannot at the moment go further until I receive this report.

Metropolitan Police (Press Statement)

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority the Metropolitan Police recently issued a statement that serious allegations made against the Metropolitan Police Fraud Squad cannot be sustained.

Mr. Renton: By direction of the Commissioner, the Solicitor to the Metropolitan Police communicated with a newspaper to draw attention to a statement that had been published in it which might be taken to reflect generally on the character of Metropolitan officers of the Company Fraud Branch. The newspaper was good enough to retract the statement.

Police Dogs

Commander Kerans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police dogs are employed in the Metropolitan area of London; and what is the full authorised establishment.

Mr. Renton: The Metropolitan Police has 201 dogs at present. The establishment is 272.

Commander Kerans: Will not the Joint Under-Secretary agree that if we had more of these dogs on the streets at night, it would in some way reduce crime in the West End during the dark hours?

Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need more dogs on the street at night. In order to help to reduce crime generally, the Commissioner is doing all he can to obtain more of them, but it may be important for my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the Commissioner recently has been given authority to spend a larger amount for breeding purposes.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the Joint Under-Secretary tell us a little more about his proposals for the recruitment of dogs? If we cannot easily keep our men up to establishment in the police, surely we could succeed in keeping the dogs up to establishment?

Mr. Renton: The difficulty is that there is a shortage of suitable dogs in this country for police purposes. Many of those which have been offered to the police are unsuitable. Indeed, in 1959 no fewer than 547 dogs were inspected, but only 27 were found to be suitable.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my hon. and learned Friend using the word "dog" in a technical sense, or does it mean both sexes?

Mr. Renton: I assume that, in the Parliamentary sense, the word "dog" includes both sexes.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTERN EUROPE (ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND RESEARCH)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Minister whose function will be to coordinate United Kingdom relations with Western Europe in the economic and research fields.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Our relations with Western Europe are a matter for the Government as a whole. The machinery for dealing with them must be flexible; and I will hear this suggestion in mind.

Mr. Wyatt: Does the Prime Minister's reluctance to apply a single-minded concentration to the problem of our co-operation with Europe mean that he is no longer as enthusiastic about a United Europe as he was at Strasbourg when he was in the Opposition? Does he not realise that many people in Europe cannot make out whether he wants Britain to join the Common Market or not, and this is making it very difficult for our relations with Europe?

The Prime Minister: The question which was asked was a question of organisation. There is always something to be said for selecting particular Ministers for particular jobs. On the other hand, these questions, especially that of research, as well as trade questions, cover the fields of a very large number of Ministers. Although I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, one has to be quite sure that one does not complicate rather than improve what is going on under one Ministerial authority or the collective work of the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL FINE ART COMMISSION

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to appoint a Minister with the responsibility of implementing the Royal Fine Art Commission's recommendations.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Such action would be entirely inconsistent with the Commission's status as an advisory body.

Mr. Wyatt: May I appeal to the Prime Minister to look into this matter again to see whether he can check the careless vandalism which is going on under his Government? Does he realise that the Royal Fine Art Commission has recommended to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government that Euston Station should not be pulled down, and, particularly, that the Doric Arch should not be destroyed, and that it has been totally ignored? Cannot he look into this again, because this is a wonderful monument of the railway age which will disappear if something is not done?

The Prime Minister: On 7th July, that is, a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend stated that he had just received a letter from the Royal Fine Art Commission on this subject, and was studying it. That is still the position. As the hon. Member knows, this proposal raises quite a number of difficult problems.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is considerable doubt whether the Royal Fine Art Commission has the resources which would enable it to fulfil its extremely important functions adequately, and will he please look into this point?

The Prime Minister: It is, of course, an advisory body which advises different Government Departments and also local authorities. I am not aware that it lacks resources, if by that is meant financial resources. It draws its help from a large number of people who give voluntary help to it—architects, artists and all kinds of people. If it requires some additional staff to do its work, I should be glad to look into that.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in regard to the Doric Arch at Euston Station, the Ministry of Works, while anxious to

help, cannot do so because it is neither an ancient monument nor a historic house? In view of that, will the Prime Minister see whether some special effort can be made to save what is a unique monument?

The Prime Minister: We will look into that, but it is a difficult problem. First, to re-erect it would be a very expensive operation, and it would involve, I think, like so many other things, the question whether this was a wise expenditure of the money and whether it was the best solution.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES FORCES (BASES, UNITED KINGDOM)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister what Minister is responsible for the civil defence arrangements for the protection of United States citizens living near United States bombing bases in Great Britain.

The Prime Minister: Civil defence arrangements are the responsibility of the Ministers designated under the Civil Defence Act, 1948. These arrangements relate to the needs of the community generally, and do not include special provision for particular nationalities.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ministers designated have already taken the responsibility for evacuating 4 million people in the event of war? Is he aware that there are a considerable number of American Service families in the region of these bases, and does he not think that, from the point of view of their safety, in view of the fact that the airmen, if sent to bomb Russia, might never come back, some steps should be taken to evacuate these American citizens to positions of safety?

The Prime Minister: I think that they will be considered as part of any general scheme for civil defence and not as members of any particular nationality.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORTS

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister, now that he has initiated a campaign to stimulate exports and appealed to British firms for more vigorous salesmanship, what further Government measures he contemplates; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Prime Minister why the coal exporting organisations were not invited on 19th July to the official conference addressed by him on the subject of encouraging British exports.

The Prime Minister: The meeting which I addressed on 18th July was in fact organised by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries and the National Union of Manufacturers, who were responsible for sending out invitations. My colleagues will be reaching many other audiences representative of the country's industrial and commercial enterprises at meetings throughout the country. Our objects are to encourage our exporters, to ask those who are exporting successfully to persuade others to do likewise, to draw attention to the need for vigorous salesmanship, and to make better known the Government's services to help exporters. Discussions are taking place with many trade associations and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is seeing representatives of the British Coal Exporters' Federation early next week.

Mr. Shinwell: While exhortations to industrialists to export more of our goods to other countries may achieve a certain measure of success, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that some further facilities and incentives are necessary? Will he not consider, for example, whether facilities such as those which we provide in the development districts to industrial undertakings could be provided for industrialists for the purpose of stimulating exports?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. All these questions are being studied. I would issue just this warning—that, as a great exporting country, it is, I think, not in our interest to start or stimulate a kind of rivalry or competition which might be injurious to us if it were widely spread among other countries.

Mr. Boyden: In future will the Prime Minister and his colleagues take a more lively and sympathetic interest in the problems of the coal export trade?

The Prime Minister: The Question asked why I addressed certain groups. It was because they were organised into these associations. The next stage is

to deal with the particular trade associations of each trade separately, and that is what my right hon. Friend is doing.

Mr. C. Osborne: Did my right hon. Friend see the excellent letter in The Times today from a small exporter showing the innumerable forms which have to be filled in by a small exporter and which it is often beyond his clerical capacity to do? Can he do something to reduce the number of forms which are required and to encourage the little man to come into this export drive?

The Prime Minister: I saw this letter. I have asked how far any simplification can be made and how far these forms are necessary to meet the demands of other countries and to make sure that our exports reach their destination.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Lincoln the Government asked the Institute of Directors to organise the meeting to be addressed by a Minister? Would it not be wiser to use reputable organisations such as those which he mentioned—for instance, the F.B.I. and the chambers of commerce—rather than to identify the campaign with this party political institute which boasts of the amount of money it spent on Conservative Party propaganda?

The Prime Minister: The first question suggested that my selection was too narrow. Now I am being blamed because it is too wide.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 25TH JULY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, which it is proposed to take formally.

A debate will take place on European Trade, on a Government Motion.

It may be necessary to proceed with other business, including the Motion to approve the Post Office (Submarine Cable System) Agreement.

TUESDAY, 26TH JULY—Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

A debate will take place on Disarmament, which it is thought may last for half a day, and be followed by any subjects which hon. Members may wish to raise.

The House may, however, be aware that the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down the Manchester Ship Canal Bill for consideration at seven o'clock. It is hoped that this Bill will not occupy an undue amount of time.

WEDNESDAY, 27TH JULYx—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the following Bills:

Betting and Gaming Bill.

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Bill.

Mental Health (Scotland) Bill.

Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill.

THURSDAY, 28TH JULY—Consideration of any further Lords Amendments to Bills.

Afterwards, a debate will take place on Road Traffic Problems, which will take place on an Opposition Motion.

If all outstanding business has been disposed of, it is hoped to adjourn for the Summer Recess on Friday, 29th July.

Our arrangements must depend upon progress of business and I shall hope to be in a position to make a further statement at the beginning of next week and announce the proposed date of our return after the Recess.

In regard to business tonight, I think that it would be more generally convenient to the House if we deferred consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Bill.

We shall proceed with the Lords Amendments to the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Bill, and then resume the Charities Bill [Lords], which was not completed last Friday.

Mr. Gaitskell: When do the Government expect to be able to make a statement about the discussions on the control of American bases in this country?

Will this be made before the Recess? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we should welcome a further statement before the Recess on the situation in the Congo as it develops and on the repercussions which there may be on adjoining territories, particularly the territories of the Central African Federation?

Mr. Butler: That raises very big questions. If I may, I will discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my colleagues principally concerned, and then communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend say whether his promised statement on procedural changes next Session in connection with the review and control of Government expenditure will be made in such a way that it can be debated on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill?

Mr. Butler: I hope to make this statement on the best method of giving Parliament additional opportunity of controlling expenditure—that is, for next Session—on Tuesday on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. We hope that there will be opportunities for hon. Members to speak on that occasion. I do not see why they will not be able to join in the debate and discuss the matter if they want to do so.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify his last statement—that he will make a statement on the Consolidation Fund (Appropriation) Bill? Does he mean during the course of debate, or after Questions?

Mr. Butler: I was inaccurate in my statement. I meant that I would make a statement before we reached the Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he was consulted about next week's business? The reason I put it that way is this: no one understands the procedure, the Parliamentary practice and the historic rights of private Members better than does the Leader of the House and yet he has agreed to these three big issues being debated on these days when more of this time, in accordance with the historic rights of private Members, should have been accorded to private Members.
Secondly, can the Leader of the House quote me a precedent for a Private Bill occupying time during a day allotted for a debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill? Is this constitutionally correct? Should not the maximum amount of time be allowed to private Members so that they can raise serious issues affecting their constituents, in view of the fact that so much time has been occupied on other matters during the past nine months?

Mr. Butler: I was fully aware of what I was to say before I rose to announce business. I have no power over the discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means; the matter lies within his discretion, and on that there was no previous consultation between him and me. The Chairman of Ways and Means has chosen to set down the Manchester Ship Canal Bill, which has passed through another place, for Tuesday next. As far as I can, I have consulted those who understand the procedure of the House, and there is nothing out of order in his so doing.
The only comment I would make to private Members, who have a legitimate point of view on this, is that the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill is exempted business, and that as we hope that the Manchester Ship Canal Bill will take only a very short time, there is no reason why any private Member should be inhibited by the regrettable fact that the Private Bill is taking up part of the time. I hope that that will to some extent meet the hon. Member's fears on this point.
The hon. Member asked about other issues. The question of a debate on disarmament was suggested by and discussed with the Opposition. I think that there has to be an opportunity for matters to be raised on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, but we must also accept that there must be consultation with the Opposition as well as consideration of private Members' rights.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. In announcing the business for next week the right hon. Gentleman said that the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill would be taken formally. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of order, that that is not for the Leader of the House to say. Is not the position this' The Motion will be moved in the

ordinary way, and then it is for the House to say how long it wishes to discuss the Motion, and not for the Government or the Opposition to say that the vote will be taken at an early stage, or that it will be taken formally.

Mr. Speaker: What the Leader of the House does—by custom it seems to be done like that—is to express his hopes, but the expression of the hope does not stop the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) or any other hon. Member from being able to raise another topic.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he always treats as a secret the day on which the Government propose to put down the Motion for the Adjournment for the Recess? It is an historic right of the House that on the Motion hon. Members can raise any subject that they may care to argue, if it is in order. I cannot understand why, on occasion after occasion, the right hon. Gentleman keeps this to himself. Will he tell the House when we shall have an opportunity to ventilate a number of points? My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) may be interested in this.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also say why he has put down the Betting and Gaming Bill, which is regarded as non-controversial by this side of the House, as the first Order on Wednesday? It would have met the convenience of the House, particularly Scottish Members, if that Measure had been put down as the last Order, and not the first.

Mr. Butler: We have put down the Betting and Gaming Bill as the first Order because it is a major Bill of the Session, and we want to get it through so that it can become law. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with us in that.
I do not think that there is any mystery or secrecy about the Motion for the Adjournment. We shall probably put it down for either Tuesday or Wednesday. My experience is that it does not require very much notice for hon. Members to take advantage of the Motion. Therefore, I have not gone out of my way to give too much notice.

Mr. Wigg: Surely the House has a right to be told. There is no difficulty about this. If we know that it is coming


on Tuesday, we can adjust ourselves. The Government and the Opposition can do the same. Rather than keeping this information up his sleeve until the last moment, hoping against hope—I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is hoping against hope—it would be far better to tell the House now what he intends to do.

Mr. Butler: The reason we delay until the end of July is that there is a great deal of business to get through. It is not absolutely certain at what hour we shall move it. I will certainly pay attention to his request, because there is no need for secrecy.

Mr. Healey: Is the Leader of the House aware that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides will be seriously handicapped in the debate on disarmament by the fact that there are no records available of the later stages of the proceedings of the Committee of Ten Nations on Disarmament? Is he aware that the records at present in the House of Commons Library stop two months short of the critical week? Will he, therefore, either contrive to obtain full records of the rest of the proceedings by the beginning of next week, or consider the possibility of publishing a short White Paper covering the breakdown period itself?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly discuss the point with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Short: On a point of order. As the Leader of the House has announced no time for debating the Second Reading of the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act, 1955 (Amendment) Bill, I give notice that I shall pursue both him and the Government until they do something about it.

Mr. Donnelly: On what day do the Government propose to make a statement about whether they are to enter on a space research programme?

Mr. Butler: I cannot make a final statement on that in answer to business questions.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the anxiety in the fishing industry about the fact that on 12th August.

which is now very near, the three-months' fishing truce will have expired and there may then start a number of incidents within the self-imposed 12-mile limit? Will we have an announcement during next week on the progress of the negotiations which are going on?

Mr. Butler: I shall have to discuss this with my colleague principally concerned.

Sir L. Plummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House when it may expect the Report of the Committee of Privileges on the complaint raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), and whether he will give time for a debate on the Report before the Recess?

Mr. Butler: We must decide about a debate when we see the Report. We have already had two meetings and I am hopeful that we shall conclude our work before the Recess. Publication will depend upon the possibility of printing, because the notice was very short indeed. However, we have had two meetings and are making considerable progress.

BILL PRESENTED

LIBRARIES (PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT)

Bill to provide far the just remuneration of authors and publishers for books supplied to public libraries and lending libraries, for the establishment of a public lending right for the purpose aforesaid, and for other purposes, presented by Mr. Wyatt; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first Resolution reported from the Committee of Supply of 20th July shall have been agreed to before half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[26TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

POLITICAL EXPENDITURE (CONTROL)

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set un an inquiry into the control of political expenditure.
The mainspring of our Amendment is our conviction that recent developments have called into question the efficacy of our law to control political expenditure during elections. The first thing to do is to establish that there is nothing new in adjusting our electoral law to changing electoral facts in this field. Indeed, it has been a long and constant process. The first modern Act, in the sense of an Act based on the idea that it was proper to limit the "power of the purse" in elections, was in 1883, namely, the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act. That was the first time that candidates' expenditure was limited by law.
That worked quite well for a fair time, until about the turn of the century, when a number of large outside bodies found a way of getting round the law and spending money in election campaigns. They were bodies like the Anti-Corn Law Society, the Licensed Victuallers' Association, and the Liberal-Unionist Association. This caused very great concern when it was found to be happening, and Parliament was then faced with essentially the same problem that we are now faced with, namely, how to stop such abuses of the law without infringing freedom of expression.
A Speaker's Conference was called in 1916 to consider this matter, and it unanimously came to the conclusion that the incursion into elections by outside bodies was a contravention of the spirit of the law. In effect, it concluded that, if one sets out to control candidates'

expenditure, one has to control outside expenditure as well, otherwise one makes nonsense of the law. This was carried into operation in the Representation of the People Act, 1918, which limited and controlled all expenditure on behalf of a candidate in a constituency during an election. It was carried further in 1948, and finally consolidated in Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949.
Mr. D. E. Butler and Mr. Richard Rose, in their book The British General Election of 1959, to which I shall have occasion to refer once or twice, described this final consolidation of the law in Section 63 as a
… summary of the laws by which the gross abuses of Victorian Electioneering were cleaned up.
Our contention is that similar abuses are now reappearing in political life. I want to emphasise that it is not a new problem we are dealing with, but an old problem in a new form, and one which Parliament has in the past shown itself capable of tackling and solving.
It is not only for this reason that the law needs to be looked at again and inquired into. There are a number of aspects in which the electoral law has shown itself to have defects. We ought to inquire into whether the same exemptions that are extended to the Press against the full rigours of our law ought to be extended to broadcasting and television. The law there is certainly in a terrible state of confusion. There is also the question whether the postal vote ought to be extended to people on holiday and, perhaps even more important, to people who, while moving from a constituency, still remain within the boundary of the same city and are not at the moment entitled to the postal vote. No doubt other hon. Members will think of many other ways in which the law has shown itself to be defective.
The main ground for inquiry, however, is that now factors have called in question the adequacy and relevance of our law to control political expenditure. A very important leading article in The Times of 9th June said:
In so far as the law regulating election expenses is supposed to set a reasonable limit to the electioneering budgets of political parties so as to cancel the undue advantage of wealth, the law is obviously defective.


That is a very grave thing, not only for us on this side but for The Times itself to say—that the law is obviously defective in one of its main purposes.
One reason for The Times' view that the law is defective was the Tronoh Mines case, heard in 1952. I have read the entire transcript of that case, which I have here. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has read it. If not, I hope that he will, because it makes very disturbing reading to anyone concerned with maintaining the integrity of the law in this connection.
What happened in that case was that, in the middle of the election campaign, the Tronoh Mines Company put an advertisement in The Times and in other newspapers openly calling for votes against the Labour Party. The company was prosecuted under Section 63 of the 1949 Act and the judge ruled that there was no case to go to the jury. As I understand it, the clear implication of that judgment—and I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would contest this—was that any advertisement by a central party or an outside body that was clearly calling for support of or opposition to a political party in the middle of an election campaign was legal so long as it made no mention of an individual, specific candidate.
This is a very alarming state of affairs. It means that the safeguards that we thought we had under Section 63, which would prevent an incursion of outside bodies into an election campaign during an election, are really illusory, and the Tronoh Mines case, and the doubt into which it has thrown the law, is itself and alone an unanswerable argument for an inquiry of the kind for which we are asking.
There are more fundamental reasons for such an inquiry. The law has now been called into question as a result of the actions of the present Administration. The Prime Minister, his chief colleagues, the big business interests behind them, have ruthlessly and cynically explored and exploited loopholes in the law, in order to get round it. While keeping within the letter of the law, they have come perilously near to killing its spirit.
The story told by Mr. Butler and Mr. Rose starts with the accession of the Prime Minister, which opened a new chapter in our electoral law. At the time of the resignation of Sir Anthony Eden the fortunes of the party opposite were at a low ebb, and the Prime Minister's two main remedies were to call the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster into the Cabinet to look after the public relations of the Government, and to call Colman Prentis and Varley into the inner circles of the Conservative Party machine.
Colman Prentis and Varley have been very coy in this country. They have even written letters to The Times suggesting that they have nothing whatever to do with politics or with putting over the views of the Conservative Party. Abroad, however, they have been rather less reticent. I have here a photostat of an advertisement that appeared in the New York Times on 12th January, 1960. It reads:
Ads like this are what C.P.V. is doing for clients all over the world.
"Clients" is the word used. And the prize exhibit, the thing that they are most proud of is that famous advertisement of the family washing a car, with the caption:
Life's better with the Conservatives. Don't let Labour ruin it.
It is the open admission—indeed, it is the boast of Colman Prentis and Varley that they are responsible for the whole thing. The slogan, the layout, the whole idea is thought up by Colman Prentis and Varley in the same way as they sell other commodities. Indeed, that advertisement comes exactly over another one of which they are apparently also very proud—an advertisement for Pepsi-Cola. They treat those, it is perfectly obvious, as being in the same category one with another. They regard the Conservative Party as a commodity, just like a soft drink or a detergent to be sold. What is even worse is that the Conservative Party allows itself to be so treated by Colman Prentis and Varley.
The Conservatives, having called in Messrs. Colman Prentis and Varley, planned, and in June, 1957, launched, a tremendous public relations campaign. In the 27 months up to the General Election the Conservative Party spent £468,000 on this public relations campaign. During the six weeks just before


the election, the Conservative Party actually became the biggest single advertiser in the country, leaving behind the brewers, the detergent makers and all the rest. In that period, the Conservatives spent five times the total that the Labour Party was able to afford on public relations of all kinds.
But this vast expenditure was put in the shade by what Mr. Butler and Mr. Rose call "politically relevant expenditure" by outside commercial interests on behalf of the Conservative Party. These authors use a very strict and narrow definition of what they mean by "politically relevant expenditure". They consider only, in their own words:
Activities of business groups which may have had a direct influence on the outcome of the 1959 election.
They exclude very much that a fair-minded observer might have included, such as the prestige advertising by the Steel Company of Wales, or by Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds which, as they say, was
… in evidence shortly before the election.
These things, which could have been included, were excluded. The authors' estimates of expenditure were very scientifically and cautiously done by pricing the various advertisements at market prices. I am prepared to accept their very narrow and limited definition of expenditure. It strengthens my case to take very conservative figures.
There were two kinds of outside body that spent money on behalf of the Conservative Party. First, there were the "front" organisations. The Conservatives have a constellation of "front" organisations that is just as elaborate and transparent as that of the Communists. They are similar in that both claim that they have no political aims or affiliations. "Aims of Industry", which is one of them, is, perhaps, the most naïve. An article that appeared in Scope in September, 1959, based on material clearly provided by "Aims of Industry", said:
It has tried as far as possible to steer clear of party politics—but this has not been easy.
One of its most striking attempts to steer clear of party politics was, of course, the organisation of the "Mr. Cube" campaign.
This organisation is financed by 4,000 companies and trade organisations, and

spent £107,000 before the election for electioneering purposes. The Institute of Directors, whose President is Lord Chandos—formerly Oliver Lyttelton—and which has among its members 100 Conservative Members of Parliament and 100 Conservative peers, spent £60,000 in this pre-election public relations campaign. The Economic League spent £208,000, and Mr. Hurry, on his anti-nationalisation campaign, spent £475,000.
The very nature and technique of these "front" organisations involves a continuous proliferation of new ones. I have recently come on the trail of a new, rather sinister and secret "front" organisation for the Conservative Party, which is very reluctant indeed to disclose what it is doing—[Interruption.] It may be that hon. Members opposite know better than I. It is called the United Industrialists Association Ltd., and its address is 140 Park Lane. It is known that before the election that Association sent personal letters to managing directors of selected firms asking for very large contributions, and I understand that it divided the money it got as to 90 per cent. to the Conservative Party, 5 per cent. to the National Liberals—a nice touch of old-fashioned courtesy—and 5 per cent. to "Aims of Industry."
This shows how closely all these interests are tied up, and it also shows how difficult "Aims of Industry" must find it to steer clear of party politics. Even those who think that this sort of expenditure is right surely cannot defend, at any rate in public, the idea that it should be as secret as all this. The right hon. Gentleman must know. He is the Chairman of the Conservative Party organisation. Ninety per cent. of the money raised must have come to a body that he controls. I hope that he will tell us, in the interests of decent public knowledge of these things, something about the United Industrialists Association Ltd.
Besides these "front" organisations, there is the direct expenditure on behalf of the Conservative Party by companies and trade associations. One or two examples are as follows. The Iron and Steel Federation spent £287,000 on politically relevant expenditure. Stewarts and Lloyds spent £269,000. If we total


both these amounts together—that of the "front" organisations and the direct expenditure by companies and similar bodies—we get £1,435,000 that was spent in the period leading up to the election with the aim of influencing it. If we add to that the similar and simultaneous expenditure by the Conservative Party of £468,000, we get the absolutely extraordinary sum of £1,903,000 spent for electoral purposes. The recent election deserves to go down in history as the "cheque book election", the election in which the tie-up between the Conservative Party and big business was more naked and unashamed than ever before.
There is compelling evidence that this expenditure was, in aim and in effect, electoral—not just political in a general sense, but electoral. One only has to look at the timetable to be satisfied about this. The timetable of expenditure was closely parallel to that of the Conservative Party. As Mr. Butler and Mr. Rose say, these various bodies bought space
with due regard to the calendar of politics.
All of them started in the spring of 1959—all in a concerted way. They all reached the peak of their spending in August, 1959. As an example of this, in the months just before the election, "Aims of Industry" made available to firms anti-nationalisation pamphlets to be stuck into pay packets. This putting of political propaganda into pay packets always strikes me as the meanest, most underhand and dirtiest form of political propaganda. But it is known of by the Conservatives and it is used by the Conservatives.
Even more significant in a way than the co-ordinated beginning and reaching of the peak of expenditure was that it all ended together practically on the same day. As Mr. Butler and Mr. Rose say:
Expenditure virtually came to an end when the Election was announced.
In other words, so electoral was this work that these firms were worried that if they continued it into the election period proper, they would get into trouble with the law. Stewarts and Lloyds dropped their blatantly dishonest slogan, "It's not your vote we ask for, it's your voice", at the very moment when the soliciting of votes became the

thing with which the law might concern itself.
The National Union of Manufacturers dropped its posters on the declaration of the election in case it should contravene the law, and the Conservative Party did just the same. We get exactly the same pattern between the Conservative Party and the outside bodies. The start, the peak and the end were absolutely parallel one to another.
There are some grave implications from all this which must arouse great anxiety. Should these expenses, for instance, be allowed against Income Tax? It is monstrous and pernicious that the whole body of taxpayers should be made to bear expenditure which is deliberately incurred in favour of one particular party.
Another implication which must disturb anyone who is concerned with the decency of our democratic life is that it brings a new and unsavoury element into it—namely, that of the pay-off—of the reward for all this outlay. The rewards have been fabulous. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) told us something about the vast increase in land values 'as a direct result of the Conservative victory. The increase in share values was almost more startling. On the very day after the election, on the very first day, share values rose by £850 million. By 28th October they had risen by £1,150 million. That was the return on an outlay of £1,435,000.
Because of the blind and obstinate policy of Her Majesty's Government, all this is tax free—all these capital gains. It is a very convenient arrangement. The outlay is set off against tax, and the pay-off itself is tax free. Indeed, as Mr. Butler and Mr. Rose said in a masterpiece of understatement:
The sponsors of the campaigns appeared satisfied with their efforts.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain how the Government engineered this large rise on the Stock Exchange?

Mr. Gordon Walker: In much the same way they engineered the increase in land values, and partly because it was perfectly clear that if the Conservatives won there would not be a capital gains tax. This was one direct way in which it was done.
I think that the gravest implication of this sort of thing that has been happening, this vast expenditure by the Conservative Party and by outside bodies—and this is really where a very serious point arises—is that it has destroyed some of the basic assumptions on which our law is based for controlling political expenditure. One of these assumptions is that a General Election is nothing but the aggregate of all the constituency contests, and that, therefore, if one wants to control expenditure, to limit the power of the purse in politics, all one need do is control these actual constituency contests.
The extent to which this assumption has been destroyed can be arithmetically demonstrated. Central parties today are far more important units in a General Election than constituency parties. This is true of both parties, but it is particularly true of the Conservatives. The sum that the Conservative Party, alone as a party, spent on public relations in the two years before the election equalled the total of all the expenditure by all Conservative candidates during the election. The Conservative Party centrally spent £468,000. All the Conservative candidates spent £470,000.
Secondly, the experience of this election has shown that outside expenditure has become infinitely the most decisive factor in the outcome of an election. The Conservative Party's expenditure on public relations, plus this outside expenditure, comes to £1,903,000. That is £850,000 more than the total expenditure by all candidates of all parties during the election. This shows that the central party, the outside expenditure, is now the decisive thing and that it is not enough for the law, as it has been in the past, to assume that all one need worry about are the constituency contests.
The second assumption of the law is that an election will lead to an increase of expenditure on propaganda. The whole basis of the law is that one wants to restrain an outburst of expenditure. But so great was the expenditure both by the Conservative Party and by these outside bodies that, for the first time in our history, the declaration of the election led to a reduction in political expenditure. This also shows how

irrelevant these basic assumptions of the law have now become. What has happened is that once again, as at the turn of the century, rich men, now advised by clever people like Colman Prentis and Varley, have found a way of riding roughshod over the whole intent and purpose of the law.
The problem is so grave that anyone who is concerned about the maintenance of democracy must try to find a remedy. There are several partial remedies, all of which should be looked into. The first arises from the urgent necessity to clarify the law after the Tronoh Mines case. The second partial remedy would be for the Conservative Party to adopt the normal political practice of publishing its accounts. The need to do this is really all the greater now that the central parties have become the really decisive factor in election contests.
I am sure that many hon. Members opposite must be somewhat troubled in their conscience—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I should not like to believe that there were not Conservatives who were troubled about the suggestive secrecy in which the finances of their party are shrouded. I hope that they will help to make their party "come clean" and play the game according to democratic rules.
Another partial remedy I wish to suggest is that the same sort of controls over political expenditure that now apply to the trade unions ought to be applied also to companies. Both kinds of body now expend part of their members' or their shareholders' moneys for political purposes. It would be manifestly unjust if they continued to be treated quite differently by the law when they really are now competing in the same field. "Political purpose" could be defined for companies in the same broad terms as one finds in the Trade Union Act, 1913. It could be said that all political expenditure should come out of a political fund, as in the case of trade unions.
Before a political fund is set up, as in the trade unions, there would have to be a resolution of the shareholders and then, as in the trade unions, a ballot of the members. Then, if the proposal were carried, prominence would have to be given to the right of shareholders to contract out and, of course, to receive an appropriate remission, presumably,


in the form of increased dividend. [Laughter.] I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they must do one or the other of two things to put these bodies on the same footing; they should either abolish the control of political expenditure by trade unions, or apply the same rules to companies.
The most difficult problem, the fundamental problem, arises from the fact that the combination of Conservative Party public relations expenditure and expenditure by the outside bodies has really undermined the central assumption on which our present law rests, that is to say, that it is enough for the law to control expenditure during the course of an election campaign to achieve the desired end. The fact is that the effective period of electioneering has now been enormously lengthened. This was clearly said by The Times in its leading article of 9th June:
… It is by now a maxim of political strategy that to win an election a party should get to work on the electorate months or years before the election takes place.
All of us know that that is a fact, and we all know that it is a fact which is ignored by the law. We really must try to find a way of bringing the law once again, as was done in 1918, when this sort of problem had to be faced, into accord with the known political facts.
The question we have to consider is whether it would be right to extend the control of the law backwards somewhat in time before the beginning of the actual election campaign. This does raise very serious and difficult problems, problems which ought to be considered above party, with the intention of trying to find a solution. It is essentially the same problem as that to which the Speaker's Conference of 1916 found a solution.
The argument against doing this has been set out very fairly in the book by Messrs. Butler and Rose. They say:
Much greater ethical and practical problems are involved if restrictions against pre-campaign activities are considered
and they go on to say that
Great hesitation should be felt about placing any restraint on the freedom to advocate ideas".
On the other hand, the same authors say that, if nothing is done, the law will become a dead letter, adding that:

The law does not recognise some of the fundamental facts of politics in the second half of the twentieth century … It would be possible to make nonsense of the present limitations by intensive pre-campaign expenditure.

Mr. Peter Kirk: There is an important point here. One simply does not know sometimes when an election is to be held. Could the right hon. Gentleman deal with that?

Mr. Gordon Walker: It was surprising how well the outside bodies were able to plan their expenditure. Nevertheless, I agree that there are problems here. I do not conceal them. This is why we want an inquiry. We do not say that the matter should be settled on the basis of one debate. We want an inquiry, and it is this sort of matter which ought to be examined.
There are several considerations to be weighed. One is that the control of pre-campaign expenditure is not altogether new in our electoral law. It is to some extent provided for by Section 103 of the 1949 Act. Secondly, the law has always drawn a distinction between freedom of expression and freedom of expenditure in putting across views with the intention to influence elections. Indeed, if one did not make this distinction between expenditure to put across views and freedom of expression, one could not control these matters at all. Our existing law makes the distinction, and there would be no new principle involved if we distinguished between what one can call the freedom of expression and the fredom to buy space. This was exactly the sort of problem which the Speaker's Conference of 1916 had to consider.
The decisive case for an inquiry is that there is here a real problem, a problem which we should ponder carefully before attempting to embark upon a solution. It is that sort of problem which ought to be inquired into in the way it was at the end of the First World War. Messrs. Butler and Rose come to just this conclusion after their very balanced consideration, saying:
The necessity for legislation has still to be proved. The case for an examination of the situation seems overwhelming.
That is what we say.
The Times, in its article of 9th June, came to a rather grim and depressing conclusion. It said:
If history is any guide, it would not be before an embryonic abuse had grown into a notorious scandal that the Legislature would be moved to act.
The Times thinks that we are heading for a notorious scandal. Many of us think that we are already at that stage. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would want to wait until a notorious scandal arose before any action was taken. We demand an inquiry because we wish to prevent and forestall the notorious scandal which is already beginning to come upon us, and which, if unchecked, will unquestionably weaken our democratic system—there is already a great deal of cynicism resulting from what has happened, and this will become greater if things continue as they are—and, more important still, perhaps, jeopardise the standing of our democratic system in the eyes of the world.

4.19 p.m.

Sir Toby Low: I shall try to answer the case put by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) in part of the spirit in which he advanced it. I shall try not to show the hatred for some aspects of our life which he showed. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important matter, because the health of our political system is a serious matter for all of us on whichever side of the House we sit and whatever view we may take about party politics.
It is certainly true that some of the arguments which have been advanced in advocating either control of political expenditure between election campaigns or an inquiry into the matter are, at first sight, seemingly attractive. If the right hon. Gentleman and the House will bear with me, I will examine those arguments and their consequences rather closely. The right hon. Gentleman talked about decency in political life and in political battles. I am sure that he will agree that hon. Members on this side of the House attach just as much importance to decency in political life as do hon. Members opposite.
The right hon. Gentleman covered some matters to which I shall not refer. I will refer only in passing to the Representation of the People Act and the

Tronoh Mines case. I shall concentrate on the wider case that he put before us, and the point that emerges from the Butler and Rose book. If hon. Members follow some of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman to their logical conclusions a number of things will become apparent. First, the result for the Labour Party is very different from what it seems to imagine and, secondly—and much more important—some of the implications for our way of life are either very serious, because they threaten vital freedoms, or are farcical because of their curious consequences.
The case for an inquiry can be treated separately from the case for control. I shall deal with the case for control, because if that case falls flat, so does the case for an inquiry. [Interruption.] Hon. Members know me well enough to realise that I am not asking them to take what I say simply because I say it; I am merely asking them to listen to what I say, and I hope that they will listen with open and unprejudiced ears.
The first thing we must do is to consider the mischief which it is sought to prevent by controlling political expenditure. I shall define what that is later. I think that we would all admit that there is no allegation of bribery or corruption of the electorate. No such allegation was made by anybody, including the right hon. Gentleman. Nor is it claimed—as it was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the law concerning elections was tightened up—that our present law allows behaviour that might lead to breaches of the peace. Thus, the two main points which led to the passing of the Representation of the People Act do not apply here.
In that Act the mischief is clear, and so is the test of what is to be controlled, namely, election expenditure. This expenditure is controlled if it is incurred in advancing a particular candidature in a particular constituency in respect of an election in prospect. That is why I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he argued that the position today in relation to expenditure between election campaigns is the same as that which was discussed in the 1916 Speaker's Conference.
There is the very important difference that what we are considering here is something much vaguer. There is no


precise mischief. There is a vague feeling that there may be a great unfairness if one political party can arrange more, and more effective, political activity than another. This feeling is not confined to the two parties opposite; there is a feeling among Conservatives, which is just as strong, that the Labour Party is helped in that way.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Let us have an inquiry.

Sir T. Low: If hon. Members will wait until I have proceeded further, and listen to what I say, they will save their time.
Let us consider the figures which the right hon. Gentleman quoted from the Butler and Rose book. I will take, first, the figures concerning the Conservative Party and turn later to the £1½ million or so in respect of industrial organisations. The figure of £450,000 in respect of the Conservative Party refers to selected expenses, such as Press advertising, posters and, as in the case of the Labour Party, "glossies". Let us suppose that the figures are not wildly wrong for either party. I cannot answer for either of them exactly. For the Conservative Party we get an annual average of £200,000, and for the Labour Party an average of £100,000. I wonder whether it is not pure humbug to say that the Labour Party could not have afforded £200,000 if it had wanted to.
In the current issue of the Political Quarterly there is an interesting article by a Mr. Christopher Rowland, who was a Labour Party candidate at the last election and a former employee of Transport House. He makes it clear that the Labour Party could have afforded it if it had wanted to. It is worth pointing out that on the evidence of this gentleman, who, I imagine, knows the facts, £200,000 is produced by less than ld. per month per affiliated member of the trade unions. That is what he says.
Mr. Rowland is also rather frank about the shortcomings of Labour Party publicity and the sort of attitude to other people's publicity which the right hon. Gentleman has displayed. He says:
An appeal to 'fair play' in expenditure"—
by the Labour Party—
would only produce a charge of sour grapes.

That is Mr. Rowland, not me. It is a feeling that the House should be aware of. We know that the real reason for the Opposition's failure in publicity was twofold. First, they had a very poor policy, and a muddled image to publicise and, secondly, they had an old-fashioned prejudice against advertising, which led them to put their money through the voter's letter-box instead of in his morning paper.
I gather that no one but Mr. Morgan Phillips has ever suggested that it was because of their bad advertising campaign that the Opposition are still the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition certainly made no such suggestion when he addressed the Labour Party Conference at Blackpool. Moreover, it is clear from what he said there that it is his view—and I believe it is his party's view—that advertising expenditure in itself is not immoral for, referring to the propaganda of the Conservative Party, he said:
The lesson is that we"—
the Labour Party—
must revise altogether our ideas of how much money we should be raising and spending for posters and other forms of propaganda.
That seems a much sounder, more honest and far more courageous reaction than is apparent from the Amendment that we are discussing and the speech to which we have just listened.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Colman Prentis and Varley. We have always known that the Labour Party has an aversion to this firm. There is now a further reason for it to have an aversion. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but the Labour Party's best man, Mr. McWhinnie, the veteran Daily Herald executive, and the party's publicity expert at its headquarters during the election, has naw joined the Colman Prentis and Varley group. [Laughter.] In the midst of the laughter, the House may not have noticed that I said that he has joined the "group."

Hon Members: A subsidiary.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Not the Institute of Directors.

Sir T. Low: The other point which the right hon. Gentleman made, and which I am sure he did not want to


make, was this. He implied that Colman Prentis and Varley settled the Conservative Party's policy. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not so. As the right hon. Gentleman has quoted and taken figures from the Butler and Rose book, perhaps he will look at what is stated on page 33, where the matter is clearly spelt out. After analysing what happened before and during the election, it is stated:
But the rôle of public relations in politics is not to make policy but to increase public appreciation of successful policies and to identify the party with popular symbols.

Mr. Gordon Walker: In view of the advertisement in the New York Times which I produced, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Colman Prentis and Varley organisation does not always tell the truth?

Sir T. Low: I have not seen the advertisement. I do not believe everything that I see in advertisements, and I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman does. What I am saying is that I am clear that Colman Prentis and Varley do not settle Conservative policy. I am also clear that the Butler and Rose combination, in analysing what happened, accepted that. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the book thoroughly, he will see that that is so.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to provide him with some more evidence of the kind which he has already produced. Is he aware that an ex-industrial editor of the Daily Herald is one of the principal officials of the Institute of Directors?

Sir T. Low: That is a very good thing for the Daily Herald which, I gather, is in difficult times.
I now want to pass to another point. It would surely be the greatest mistake—and The Times pointed this out in its leader—to think that advertising is the only channel of pre-election expenditure which has an electoral bearing. It is here that I want to analyse some of the other forms of political expenditure which have a political bearing. The first concerns the political activities of trade unions. I do not know whether it is generally recognised that more than two-thirds of trade union political funds are used by the trade unions for political

purposes and do not pass through the Labour Party's accounts.
In 1957, the Labour Party's accounts showed that only £200,000 was provided from the trade unions political funds and that the total of its funds was over £700,000. I think that these figures are right. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Tory Party's accounts?"] I will come to that. I am not complaining about this, but I think that it ought to be borne in mind.
In addition, we know perfectly well that general funds are used for trade union journals, many of which are notoriously pro-Labour Party and anti-Conservative Party. Also, there is the immense advantage, which it is not possible to qualify in money terms, which the Labour Party enjoys from having the nucleus of a party organisation in most trade union branches and in many shop stewards meetings. These are the facts. I am not whining and wailing to the House about them. I am saying that they are the facts.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: While the right hon. Gentleman is giving these figures about trade unions and the Labour Party, would he not agree that it would help the debate if he were to put side by side with them the figures concerning the Conservative Party and the contributions which it receives?

Sir T. Low: It would help very much if I could get to the part of my speech dealing with accounts, and I would got there much quicker if I were not constantly interrupted.
The next subject about which I want to talk is the co-operative societies. I am told that in 1957 over £500,000 was spent by retail societies on education. Most of this expenditure was party political expenditure.

Mr. George Darling: On a point of order. When a completely untruthful statement like that is made—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a point of order."] It is a point of order. When an untruthful statement of that kind is made, would it not be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman if we were to tell him what were the facts? This expenditure on education was not Political.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That is not a point of order. It is a point of argument.

Sir T. Low: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not wish to accuse me of an untruth. I am told that that is the position. If I am wrong, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and we shall hear what he has to say about it.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: Mrs. Harriet Slater (Stoke-on-Trent, North) rose——

Hon. Members: The hon. Lady cannot take it.

Sir T. Low: I should now like to turn to a consideration of the constituency Labour parties. Many of us are not aware of the kind of funds which the constituency Labour parties have at their disposal. But on 7th October, 1955, in an article in Tribune, which I am told at least half the members of the party opposite believe, by Mr. Ian Mikardo, whom we have not here any more, it was stated that the constituency Labour parties had an annual revenue of £1 million. That is not a small sum. Further, if the right hon. Gentleman has read the Butler and Rose book, he will know that on page 28 reference is made to the help given to the Labour Party by the staff of the Daily Mirror. No money value was stated.
Finally, under this head, let me come to the Daily Herald.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson rose——

Hon. Members: Try to learn to take it.

Sir T. Low: The important thing about the Daily Herald, which is unrivalled by any other newspaper in the country, is that the political aspect of its editorial policy is, in effect, controlled by the T.U.C. and the Labour movement. In considering political expenditure on publicity, some account must be taken of that fact.

Mr. Mendelson: Mr. Mendelson rose——

Sir T. Low: I will try not to tax the patience or tempers of hon. Members opposite too much in future.
This is by no means an exhaustive list. I do not think that it can be matched fully by the Conservative Party, although we have our constituency asso-

ciations which are just as active as, if not more active than, those of the Labour Party.
I now turn to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about the industrial companies and associations to which he referred. He referred to this vast expenditure, allegedly, I suppose, in support of the Conservative Party. What was that expenditure for? It was for free enterprise against nationalisation. Who provoked it? It was not the Conservative Party, but the Labour Party. Who threatened who? What happened? These men replied. The naughty animal defended itself.
It is helpful to know—for this is the implication of what the right hon. Gentleman said—that in the new Socialist animal farm such a form of defence will not be allowed. If we are to have arguments about what is unfair or unsporting, this objection to defensive expenditure seems to me to take the bun. If we are to have the argument about what is called incursion into politically relevant expenditure—I think those are the words the right hon. Gentleman used——

Mr. Gordon Walker: Mr. Butler.

Sir T. Low: That Mr. Butler is not in this House, so I will take it from the right hon. Gentleman.
I really think that to complain about that kind of incursion is very remarkable even for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
But what does all this amount to? It amounts to this. It is very clear that there is a great quantity of political activity, both within and without the political parties between elections, and there is nothing new about that at all, any more than there is anything new about political publicity, and there is nothing new in the Labour Party or any other party taking action through publicity methods or otherwise to try to help to win an election two or three or four years on.
Look for a moment at what the Labour Party did before the 1945 election. Have they forgotten the Gollancz Yellow Books? What was the effect of "Guilty Men"? It is quite impossible to quantify, but I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is so ashamed of it he


does not recollect anything about it. One of the consequences of "Guilty Men" was, I suppose, that its impression upon the electorate was so great that we had that terrible Government between 1945 and 1950.
I have sought to establish—I hope hon. Members opposite will accept that this is what I have sought to do—that the arrangements under the present law really do not involve any unfairness as between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.

Mr. Darling: Nonsense.

Mr, Jeremy Thorpe: Both are wrong.

Sir T. Low: I see the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), who represents the Liberal Party. I have heard it said that the Liberals want the rules of the political game to be changed. There is nothing new about that—among those who have been as long a failure as they have been; but I am surprised to hear that they are considering the virtues of controlling political expenditure or even controlling political incomes. I do not know quite how this fits in with Liberal doctrine, this flirting with controls, for, as I will show in a moment, the control of this kind of expenditure is quite inconsistent with freedom. I observe on the front of the Liberal Party's handbook that the aims of that party finish with these fine words:
In all spheres it sets freedom first.
So I hope that in the few more minutes I wish to speak—after all those interruptions—I shall carry those hon. Gentlemen with me.
Just suppose that there was a mischief—I will accept for a moment that there was a mischief—and there had to be some control of political expenditure. What is political expenditure? How do we define it? Is it the expenditure of political parties? And, if so, what is a political party? I do not know whether the Labour Party is a legal entity, but I can assure the House that the Conservative Party is not a legal entity. So we have, first, to define what a political party is if we wish to control political expenditure defined by the expenditure of political parties, but in fact, if we did we should not, of course, cover the point which the right hon. Gentleman

mentioned about incursion into the political field from outside. So I take it that he would not want to go very much wider.
We have to accept that Members of Parliament or members of political parties have not a monopoly of political wisdom or activity, and that there are other people outside who write books and who write plays, or make speeches, and who have a right to influence the political field. What happens if we do start going much wider? Immediately, we bring into this field of control any expressions of opinion—I suppose, following on what the right hon. Gentleman says, any expressions of opinion which cost money in some way and which may have a bearing on an election.
That may be speeches by chairmen of companies on restrictive practices, or even attacking the Chancellor for bad economic policies. It may be that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] What about the campaign for nuclear disarmament, organised by an eminent cleric? What about the campaigns run by convinced social workers to further the recommendations of the Wolfenden Report? What about the activities of old-age pensioners' associations? They all have a political impact. What about some of the plays? There are two successful plays now running in London, one called "The Visit" and the other called "Rhinoceros"—owing to the activities of the Whips I have not been able to go to either—which have both been described as brilliant and telling attacks on the capitalist system and the so-called affluent society. Would they be considered as Labour Party propaganda?
What about the other side? I have taken the one side, the anti-capitalist. I will take another one which some hon. Gentlemen opposite complained about. Just before the election there was the film, "I'm All Right, Jack". Ought that, therefore, to have been subject to control? If so, how do we work it out? All that seems rather absurd, though it is completely logical, and if we extend control to plays and films, how can we avoid extending it to books and eventually right inside the Press, particularly that part of the Press which is controlled under an agreement by a political


party? I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has really worked out what is the effect of what he has said.
That is one half of the matter, but there is the other half of this question of political expenditure. What is expenditure? Does it simply refer to the spending of money? Or is the contribution in kind also to be controlled? What happens if it is? We have voluntary efforts for political aims whether inside parties or not, and once we get at them surely we are damaging a basic part of our free, democratic life. I certainly would not wish to control in any way the political activities of trade union branches, or even shop stewards or "pub" landlords. I do not really believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite would do, either.
Let us have a look now at what the control would be.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Mr. Joseph Slater (Sedgefield) rose——

Sir T. Low: I do not want to give way, because I am drawing to a close.
If we work out how we would control, there is surely only one way in which to do it—setting a limit to how much money may be spent beyond which it must not be spent. Then we get some really most absurd things. I will take only the most absurd. What happens when we have a dispute inside a political party?

Mr. John Diamond: It never happens.

Sir T. Low: Mr. Cousins's expenditure, or the Tribune's expenditure—is that to be charged up to the accounts of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell)? Or is he to be given—much worse than that—some power of controlling what is done in the way of publicity or political activity by Labour Party supporters? I should like hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to think about the implications of that. That is surely enough to show how farcical and absurd and how dangerous this proposal for control is; and I think that I can come now very shortly to this question of publishing accounts.
Hon. Gentlemen will see that the same arguments apply. What is a political party? What expenditure must be

included in its accounts and what income? Would constituencies be included? Would wards' and hamlets' expenditure be included?

Mr. S. Silverman: Do it in the way that we do it.

Sir T. Low: The way that the hon. Member does it is to leave out about four-fifths of the expenditure, and that I regard as extremely misleading.
If the right hon. Member is really sincere in telling the House that his main objection to the present system is the incursion into this field by outside bodies, how would the publication of party accounts deal with that point? [An HON. MEMBER: "Have an inquiry."] Why do hon. Members want an inquiry to something which is as obvious as that? It has been alleged that the Labour Party publishes its accounts. It publishes an account, but leaves out an enormous amount of money spent to its advantage. The Liberal Party publishes an account which is not even an account of its party, but an account of its headquarters organisation. It shows an income of £24,000 and I believe that the activities of the Liberal Party as a whole are rather more than £24,000 would account for.
Let us stop this complete humbug of the Labour Party and the Liberal Party publishing true and full accounts. They do not do so, and, I venture to say, could not do so, because it is quite impossible to give a clear picture to outsiders of the full activities of any political party for the reasons that both I and the right hon. Member have mentioned. That has been found here and it has also been found overseas. So far as I have been able to find—and I have done some research into this question, covering several months—nowhere in the free world is there any effective system of control of political expenditure, or of political parties' incomes, and nowhere an effective system for the compulsory publication of full and meaningful accounts by political parties. That is a fact.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton) rose——

Sir T. Low: I cannot give way; I must conclude my speech, for I have spoken long enough. A Frenchman,


M. Fusilier, has summarised the position as follows:
Under the democratic forms of government, laws to regulate the finance of political parties are both few (since in general there is no definition of the constitution of political parties) and, where they are relatively precise, are not enforced and remain a dead letter … This weakness can be attributed not so much to deliberate design on the part of the legislators as to the fact that the development of a strict system of control would be both ineffective and dangerous to the whole democratic system.
That is not just my view, nor the view of anyone in this country, but the view of a Frenchman who has studied these points very carefully. I challenge hon. Members opposite to explain how there could be any general control of political expenditure, other than we have at election time, that was both effective and consistent with the essential freedoms of our political system.
It is well worth remembering that, however fiercely we fight our political battles here, there is at present no corruption and no under-the-counter behaviour. Introduce controls into the political system affecting, not a short period, but the whole period between elections, operate them all the time, and it is certain that it would not be long before someone, somehow, not, perhaps, in the large parties, set up a black market in political propaganda; and, after all, there are so many mediums available for that. Open propaganda splash is better than concealed propaganda subterfuge. The right hon. Member knows that as well as I do. Controls of the kind that he has been talking about are absolutely inappropriate in the field of opinion and argument.
Like all controls, a control of political expenditure would be bound to favour the Establishment and this control on the expression of political opinion—for that is what it would be—could eventually destroy our democratic government. To those who are genuinely worried that propaganda may grow too intense, I can only say this. The good sense of political parties and of the public generally will surely ensure that publicity activities are not overdone, if only because if they are overdone they would defeat themselves. Not for the first time, the party opposite would be wiser to trust the people.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: When anyone has had a few years' experience in public life, especially in the House, he learns to take hard hitting in the right way, but I regret the many inaccuracies and innuendoes contained in the speech of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low).
I have thought for some time that standards in the House and in the country have been changing. Throughout the whole of my time in the House, I have never known reference to be made to a previous hon. Member in the way in which it was made today to Mr. Mikardo. It is true that Mr. Mikardo was defeated in the General Election—and we have learned to take that kind of thing in the way we should—but to make reference to it after the way in which he has served this House, and after other aspects of his activity in Britain, was something to which we should object.

Sir Leslie Plummer: It was typically low.

Mr. Ellis Smith: All we are asking for today is an investigation into political expenditure. We would stand by the results of that investigation, because we are confident that if a committee were set up it would recommend the publication of all political expenditure, which is what we are asking for. So strongly did my hon. Friends and I feel about this that we tried to use our Parliamentary rights to raise the question on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill. We felt strongly about it for several reasons, the main one being that it is now nine months since this Parliament assembled and not until today has there been an opportunity to raise this fundamental issue and challenge to British democracy. If anyone doubts the challenge to British democracy, I hope that he will be good enough to remain for a short time while I produce evidence to prove it.
The second reason why we desired to raise this question was as follows. Anyone who has studied Erskine May and has had any experience of Parliamentary practice, usage and the generations of democratic development in this House, knows that in the past this kind of thing has been used by rich men. That is why


we desired to take advantage of this opportunity.
After reflection, and after reading the OFFICIAL REPORT, I want to be unequivocally clear about my own conduct. I accept without any reservation the right of Mr. Speaker or the occupant of the Chair not to select Motions or Amendments, and that that right should not be challenged. On that I plead guilty to my activity in the House on a Friday a little time ago, when I came into conflict with the Chair. Having made that clear, I think that if anyone studies the procedure closely he can understand to a certain extent the line I took on that day. I was reinforced by the strong feeling there is on the subject and by the controversy which had been aroused outside.
We consider that the means by which the results were obtained in the last General Election were a fundamental challenge to British democracy. I am not saying for a moment that that was the only reason or cause for the Labour Party losing the last General Election. I know that there were very many reasons, and if any hon. Member were to interrupt me and point them out I would readily accept a number of them. But, fundamentally, the challenge arises on this abnormal expenditure on political matters for eighteen months prior to the last General Election.
If anyone doubts that, I would ask him these questions: where will it stop? What are the limitations? It was £.1½ million last time; how much next time? I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had made an official statement that if the Labour Party is returned on the next occasion one of the first things it will do is to nationalise the steel industry. I hope that we mean business on that. Anyone who followed the rise of the steel barons in Europe prior to the war, and knows how they supported political activity and challenged democracy, knows that the same kind of people will do the same thing here. Therefore, before it is too late, before this challenge is made in other directions, we as a panty want to safeguard democracy, and we are appealing to right hon. and hon. Members to join with us in referring this matter to a Committee for investigation. If that Committee suggests certain regulations

on the publication of political expenditure, that is all that we are asking for.
How much will it be next time, after this £1½million last time? Twice, in two world wars, this country has been challenged. We saved this land—the men of my generation who are lying in their graves all over the world—but the land still belongs to the landlords, as is evidenced by last Monday's debate. If we propose to deal with the land question fundamentally, we are entitled to refer it to a democratic decision of the people of this country. If a democratic decision had been asked for sixty years ago, the Radicals would have rallied this country, especially the late Mr. Lloyd George, on the issue "The land for the people." These are the kind of issues raised. Members of the Institute of Directors may think that this is a joke, but, so far as we are concerned, it is a challenge to democracy, and we intend to state it in the House and outside until this grievance of ours is redressed.

Mr. A. E. Cooper: I am not disputing the right of the hon. Member and his colleagues to make any assertions they like. They may wish to nationalise steel and nationalise the land, but is the hon. Gentleman, having made his point on policy, saying that those who have a contrary view are not to be allowed to spend money on defending their point of view?

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is a very fair question which I shall deal with later. I hope that the hon. Member will be present when I deal with it. We are not saying that at all. We are saying this: the Conservatives hold an annual conference and come to decisions. The Labour Party holds an annual conference and comes to decisions. When, as a result of our conference, we decide on a policy and it goes before the country, it should be left to the people to decide, and £1½ million should not be spent by the steel barons and others, prior to a General Election, in trying to bring about the situation that the people are not judging the issue on the correct basis, in a fair way, as used to be the case. I will deal in more detail with that later.
For the time being I want to remind hon. Members about Parliamentary rights, practice and usage, because we should have raised this issue long before now. We should have


demanded an independent investigation into the whole constitution and action of those who spent£1½million prior to the last General Election. The Third Reading of the Finance Bill, in my view, gave us the opportunity. We should have said, and I am now saying, that the normal expression of democracy was prevented at the last General Election. We want to prevent a re-occurrence. We want to safeguard democracy. In our view, therefore, the Government should agree today to an independent investigation into this matter.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that he believes that the whole process of democracy is frustrated by the attention of the British electorate being drawn to the issues at an election?

Mr. Ellis Smith: I have listened to the hon. Member's point. I will deal with it in a courteous way, and I hope that he will treat what I have to say in a courteous way. The short answer, as an hon. Friend has reminded me, is that the dice are loaded. That is the first point. The second is that this Eli million was made by hard working people and ought not to be used in the way in which it was used.
Fifty-one years ago the non-elected other place—let me emphasise—showed the House how to use its Parliamentary rights. In 1909, the Finance Bill was rejected by another place until it had been submitted to the country for the judgment of the people. Fifty-one years later, we do not even support the proposal for a Select Committee. It has taken nine months for this issue to be raised.
The following should be put on record, because if we obtain a majority in the future, which I am confident we shall if we act as a real Labour Party, a radical party, we shall rally the people of the country behind us and then it will be necessary to take advantage of our Parliamentary rights. What are they? The supreme, absolute authority for the control of finance in this country rests with the elected Members of the House of Commons. Therefore, if we assert that right, we can deal with this problem as it should be dealt with. One of the most urgent problems will be to demand an independent investigation

into this abnormal expenditure of £1½ million.
It is easy to raise this subject now because there have been so many articles and there has been so much controversy in the country. But some of us stand on good ground with regard to this. Within a few days of this new Parliament assembling I made the following statement. I remember the Leader of the House being sceptical and slightly critical—to which I take no objection—but also cynical about what was said on that occasion. I said:
After the last General Election politics in Britain can never be the same, and those hon. Friends of mine to whom I shall refer later must bear this in mind. Let me make it clear that I am not complaining, I am not whining. As I understand the social and economic forces which are at clay This is a challenge. Instead of retreating we ought to accept the challenge …
I am confident that if we accept this fundamental challenge to democracy and state it clearly in the country and let the people know what is at stake, they will respond to an appeal of that character. Then I went on to say:
Thousands of pounds, if not millions, were spent during the last twelve or eighteen months—but I do not believe in overstating the case—in the biggest publicity barrage of all time…"—'[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 113.]
Little did I realise that it was not thousands of pounds that was spent but £1½ million. That should not be allowed to pass without an independent investigation being made before the next General Election.
I would point out that in view of what is at stake in this country, in view of our desire to save our country, in view of our desire to bring about more public ownership, and in view of our desire that Britain should make a greater contribution to avoiding another terrible catastrophe, the reaction of the country will be not to stop at spending millions rather than merely limiting itself to £1½ million.
It is for those reasons that we are raising the issue in the way in which we are doing it. We do not object—let me emphasise this to the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North—to legitimate expenditure on political activities. What we do object to is abnormal expenditure of the character to which I am now going to refer. There were, for example, the


following amounts: the Iron and Steel Federation £287,000; Stewarts and Lloyds £269,000; the Institute of Directors £60,000; the Road Haulage Association £19,000; the National Union of Manufacturers £10,000; Public opinion polls £475,000; and the Economic League £208,000.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) speak in a very critical manner of the contribution of £107,000 by Aims of Industry. I hope that this will mean that there will be no more Labour Members of Parliament and prominent trade unionists speaking on the platform of Aims of Industry.
The total expenditure by all these organisations amounts to nearly £1½ million. In our view, this was the most unconstitutional action taken in this country prior to a General Election since the days of the Red Letter.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Before my hon. Friend leaves this point, is it not a fact that the Government themselves deceived the House on this matter before the last General Election? I refer to the questions which were put week after week to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor was asked whether this expenditure by private firms was tax free, because we held that the law said that only expenditure wholly for the purpose of a firm's trade was tax free. Week after week the Chancellor refused to answer our questions. That is a fact. Now, apparently, after the General Election it is turning out that this expenditure was tax-free. The House——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has not been called to make a speech.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for allowing my hon. Friend to make his comment. I much appreciate it. I thank my hon. Friend for his very informative interjection. I hope that you. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will make due allowance, because it is a fact that week after week these questions were asked. Some hon. Members opposite—I am not speaking critically now—thought at the time that my hon. Friends were overdoing it because we were raising the matter so often,

but now, as my hon. Friend has said, we have seen from financial newspapers and other periodicals that the allegations that we were making in those days have been proved to be justified. My hon. Friend was giving further information about the seriousness of the issue that we are considering, and I thank him for his evidence.
The last General Election was preceded by a new modern form of extensive corrupt practices. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, North, to whom we listened with great courtesy in spite of some of his innuendoes and misstatements—it may have been misinterpretation— —

Mrs. Slater: It was misleading.

Mr. Ellis Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) ought to deal with this matter. She says that when she and others went to Blackpool the Conservative Party spent a large amount of money in the local Press in trying to defeat what they went there for.

Mrs. Slater: They were members of the Co-operative Movement.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It was legitimate Cooperative business, and the Conservative Party was not correct in the use of the expenditure for which it was responsible in the Blackpool Press.

Sir Douglas Glover: How much did the Co-operative Movement spend?

Mrs. Slater: Nothing in the Press. It was a Tory Press.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I now want to prove the statement I have made with regard to extensive corrupt practices in a modern, 1960, form. I claim that the gigantic expenditure of £1½ million should have been considered before now, and should be considered as soon as possible, by the Attorney-General. I would ask the Leader of the House whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has considered the matter, and whether we can have an investigation into it.

Mr. Philip N. Hocking: When the hon. Gentleman asks that the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be drawn to this matter, will he also include all


the literature which is distributed by the trade unions before elections? Also, will he on his way to Stoke-on-Trent during the next weekend go through Coventry and look at some of the posters which the Labour Party is putting up in preparation for the municipal elections?

Mr. Ellis Smith: My wife complains so much about my being away that I shall not go to Coventry. I shall be going home as soon as I can.

Sir D. Glover: Is it the case that if the hon. Member goes to Coventry he will be sent to Coventry?

Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not fear being sent to Coventry, having had the confidence of thousands of the working men and women of the area where I live, having lived among them in my own house, sharing their difficulties and their way of life. I have never been affected by the things which affect so many people. I have never been where so many have gone this afternoon. I have never been dined and wined. These people know it. I welcome interruptions. This is what the House is for. We do not mind questions, and I will answer the hon. Gentleman's question. We will readily agree and will place every book and report we can at the disposal of a committee of investigation, because honest men fear nothing. Those of us who have been trained in the trade union movement know we have got to account to Government auditors for every farthing. That is what we are asking with regard to this and that is the reply to the fair question put by the hon. Member.
Trade unionists have to contract in by law, and right hon. and hon. Members—because I must associate the Leader of the House with this—are indulging in a large amount of propaganda and education, as they look upon it. They are organising conferences throughout the country. The influence is not all coming from the trade union movement The Institute of Directors is gathering increasing influence and using in it different directions. Therefore, seeing that we have to raid our finance in this way, we say that if it is right that this should be applied to us it is right to apply it to everyone else. The whole of the income we derive is from weekly or quarterly contributions from men and women organising the trade union movement. Our expenditure is relatively small and

can be explained, and has been accepted in the past. We complain about the difference between a few thousands and £1½ million of the type of expenditure which I have described.
Compare our position with the thousands of pounds given by the financiers, by the landlords and by the industrialists. In our view, this is a negation of democracy; it is a negation of British ideals and standards. In this I speak only for myself, but in my view it represents the introduction of American ideas into British political activities. The trade unions have to account for every penny. They are subject to rigid and strict Government audits. Our balance sheets are open to all, and so are those of the Labour Party in the annual reports.
I ask the Leader of the House to look at this. In accordance with the law of the land, every penny must be returned by every candidate engaged in a General Election. Here is returned a total amount of £1,051,000. To that should be added £1½million, making a total amount of £2,551,000. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that, as the old form of corruption was cut out by legislation, now this kind of corruption ought to be eliminated by legislation. The first step towards that is to have an impartial investigation, and that is what we ask for.
Let me make clear to every hon. Member who has been good enough to listen, and in particular to the Leader of the House, that we are not speaking only for ourselves. I have in my hand extracts from the July issue of the monthly journal of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. That union is responsible for organising a million people engaged in the export trade. They are seriously disturbed by the issues we are raising today. I should like to get this quotation on the record but I do not want to take up more time. I call attention to it because it is typical of what is appearing in a number of trade union journals and that is the reason we are dealing with the matter in this way.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Charles Curran: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) in his complaint about the spending of money at election time. Both sides do it, and I do not believe that it is any good


crying "tit-for-tat". Industry spends a lot of money and so do the co-operatives. When we talk about the expenditure of money by bodies other than political parties, there are a great many things to take into account. One has, for instance, to take into account the enormous value of the efforts exerted by the Daily Mirror at the last election on behalf of the Labour Party. I do not know how one measures that. I do not complain about it, not a bit. I do not want to put any restraint of any sort on anybody expressing any opinion, either at an election or before it.
I want the hon. Gentleman, instead of dealing in excuses, to look at the facts. It is a curious fact about British politics, and one that has puzzled everyone who inquired into them, that whenever the Tory Party loses a General Election it is an act of natural justice and a natural reward from the indignant electorate. But every time the Labour Party loses an election it is a foul. When I listen to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South uttering the stereotyped complaints about Labour defeats at elections he put me in mind of Joe Jacobs, that distinguished man who had a long career in America as a manager of boxers. Mr. Jacobs maintained that his boxers were all unbeatable, and whenever one was knocked through the ropes he would jump up at the ringside and say, "We wuz robbed; it's a foul." The Socialist Party is behaving exactly like Mr. Jacobs. Whenever it loses it declaims, "We wuz robbed".
During the last forty years we have heard one excuse after another from the Labour Party for losing elections—because of the "Red Letter", or because of the "Bankers' ramp", or because of "Post Office savings", and now Colman Prentis and Varley. The truth has got to occur to the Labour Party at some time and it might as well be now. When people do not vote Labour the reason is they do not like the Labour Party. That is all. It is not a result achieved by the trickery of Press agents, or by publicity experts or hidden persuaders. It is because the British people do not want to have a Labour Government. To try to throw doubt on their verdict, and to assert that British people are so stupid and so moronic that they can be led up the garden path by cunning,

skilful advertisers, is an insult to British democracy. The British people are quite capable of making up their own minds for themselves.
It is elementary to say this, but to suppose that it is advertising propagandists who create public opinion is completely wrong. The climate of public opinion is not created by advertisers, or by Press experts.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Then why do they spend this£1½million?

Mr. Curran: I shall be glad to tell the hon. Gentleman. They do not create the climate. They seek to exploit a climate which already exists. They do not create the climate, any more than a thermometer creates a heatwave. They measure it and study it and try to make use of it. To blame Colman Prentis and Varley because people vote Tory is like blaming Wall's ice cream because people get sunstroke.
Since I assert that the climate of public opinion is not created by hidden persuaders, by expert manipulators, by Madison Avenue and its British equivalents, I wish to explain, particularly for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, how the climate of public opinion is created in this country and how it is changed. It is no use supposing that it is all done by mirrors, or by Press agents. It is not.
The climate of public opinion in this country is changed by two forces. It is changed partly by alterations in material conditions and partly—this is the point which I want to emphasise—by the writers and the people who deal in ideas. It is the writers and dealers in ideas more than anybody else who bring about changes in the climate of public opinion, not the Press agents. I want to give some illustrations of this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Including yourself?"]I am speaking as an analyst and doing my best to improve hon. Members' minds. What I say has been said before, and said much better by Keynes. Keynes said that it is ideas which are dangerous, not vested interests. Ideas are dangerous, and in the long run it is ideas, and only ideas, which count. It is the people who write books, as Keynes insisted, who bring about changes in the climate of public opinion.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Whose books?

Mr. Curran: I am addressing myself now to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), and I want to define for him what I mean by books. I do not mean Reveille. I use the word books in its quaint and ancient sense of 50,000 to 60,000 printed words, one after the other, with no pin-up pictures of any sort to help the weary traveller to plod through the type. That is the kind of book of which I am speaking.
Since 1945 the whole climate of public opinion in this country has been changed by a succession of books. It has become completely hostile to the Left. There has been an intellectual counter-revolution, and it is high time that the Labour Party began to study it and the reasons for it.
I will mention a few of these books. The first was published in London in the month in which the European war came to an end. It was written by George Orwell and it was called "Animal Farm". I suppose that it was the greatest piece of satire since "Gulliver's Travels", and it "blew the gaff" on Stalin worship. It destroyed the great idol of our Russian ally which had been erected in this country during the war. It had an enormous impact upon British public opinion. Everybody in this country knows one phrase from "Animal Farm"—the phrase about some men being more equal than others.
Four years later—it came out in 1950 when he was dying—he published a book called "Nineteen Eighty Four." That was a picture of what life is like in England under Socialism [Hon. Members "Nonsense."] I could very easily go on to explain what Orwell thought about it. When he was dying I went to see him in the Cotswolds, at the sanitorium where he was living. I spent a whole day in Orwell's company. We discussed "Nineteen Eighty Four" at length. I had a proof copy; it had not then been published. Orwell told me how he had come to write it and the enormous disgust which he then felt about the beliefs of the Left and the delusions of progress and the nonsense of supposing that one can go on believing in the perfectibility of man.
Those were the phrases which he used to me. Those were the ideas which he conveyed in "Nineteen Eighty Four." The effect of this book, too, was enor-

mous. It came out in 1950, and it introduced two phrases into the English language which are still there. One was the phrase "double-think" and the other was the phrase "Big Brother." Everybody in England is familiar with them.
Ths book was serialised, it was sold in large numbers and it was put on television. Its effect on the climate of public opinion in England was enormous. I assert—and I am not the only person who believes this; there are better judges of public opinion than I who hold the same view—that the impact on the British people of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four probably had more to do than any other single factor with the Socialist defeat in the 1951 General Election. That book did more than all the speeches, all the advertisements and all the politicians to change the climate of public opinion in England. It is important to remember that 1950 was the beginning of the television years in this country, and Orwell's book was televised.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am following what the hon. Member is saying with the greatest interest. I think that there may be something in it, but not as much as he says. He speaks of a great counterrevolution which has been brought about by these two books. Will he bear in mind that in 1945, when the Labour Party won the greatest victory of its career, its proportion of the total poll was 48 per cent.? In 1959, when it had the worst result, at any rate since the war, its proportion of the total poll was 44 per cent. Thus, the great counter-revolution did not amount to all that he is claiming for it.

Mr. Curran: I appreciate the point and, rather than dismiss it, I should like to deal with it now. When I used the word "counter-revolution" I was talking about the change of opinion primarily in the opinion-forming segments of our society. There are a certain number of people in our community who, make and distribute opinion, and it is when these people change their minds that, by a chain reaction, other people change their minds, too.
The importance of Orwell—the hon Member knows this better than I do—was the enormous influence which he


had over the British Left in the 1930s. He was the man who wrote Road to Wigan Pier. He fought in Spain, and he wrote Homage to Catalonia. He wrote Down and Out in Paris and London. This influence which Orwell had over the British Left was not forgotten, and it was not destroyed when Orwell wrote, first, Animal Farm and then Nineteen Eighty Four. That is why I say that the impact of these two books on the opinion-making segments of our society was enormous.
But that was not the end of the story. Orwell was a very good example of the phrase which I have quoted, in which Keynes said that it was ideas and not vested interests which would change the world, but I want to give another and more popular example—the novelist Nevil Shute. Nevil Shute died a few months ago. He was one of the most popular authors in this country. In the course of about thirty years of writing he had achieved almost a unique ascendancy over a new section of our society, what may be called the nontraditional middle class—the engineers, the technicians, the people who go up the escalator from grammar schools and technical colleges and red brick universities. One might almost call Nevil Shute the Dickens of Red Brick.
In 1954, Nevil Shute wrote his autobiography, which was called Slide Rule. Like everything else he wrote, it sold in vast quantities. In this autobiography Nevil Shute told the story of his own life in the British aviation industry. He had entered it after 1918 and he had worked in the 1920s on aviation, writing novels in his spare time. He described how he had been employed as chief calculator on the R100, the free-enterprise airship built in competition with the State-built R101.
In his autobiography, Shute described—it was a savage, blistering and unanswerable attack—how the R101 went to its end. It was the "Titanic" of British aviation. He said that it was because of State management and State muddling. He made a direct accusation that one reason why the R101 went to disaster was because the then Minister of Air in the Socialist Government, the late Lord Thomson, who died in the

R101 crash, was guilty, at the least, of meddling, muddling vanity.
Almost everyone connected with British aviation has read that book—even men wino never read novels read Shute. His remarks about State management, control and planning have been discussed by wide sections of opinion-forming people in this country, and have had their effect in the new industries and the new techniques developed since 1945. Shute did not stop there. As a result of his experience over the R101——

Mr. John Mackie: Can you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, tell me how the hon. Gentleman's speech is related to the debate on political expenditure?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member is trying to point out that political opinion is influenced by literature and not by party pronouncements.

Mr. S. Silverman: I understand the point which the hon. Member is trying to make, but, surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is rather a long way from a debate about the control of expenditure. Having made the point, would it not be better now to come back to the Amendment?

Mr. Curran: The two previous speeches were made by hon. Members who insisted that the illegitimate—the last speaker called it the "corrupt"—expenditure by propagandist bodies and of partisans on the Tory side, was probably responsible for changing public opinion and winning the election for the Tory Party. That is an important accusation, and the people who made it are urging that there should be an inquiry to see whether there Should be a change in the law. Surely it is relevant to say, in reply, that there is a different explanation which is far more credible. That is what I am seeking to do.
Far from being shut up by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I am determined to put the case, even if he does not like it. I say that Shute who had this unique influence among the non-traditional middle class in England and whose experience of the R101 and of State planning led him——

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I submit, with great respect to


you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and without wishing to upset the hon. Gentleman, that what he is saying is going a very long way. If he is to be allowed to continue this discussion about Nevil Shute and the R101, is the rest of the debate to be taken up in answering it, or will hon. Members who try to do so be out of order? It has nothing whatever to do with whether there should or should not be an inquiry into political expenditure and control of political expenditure —nothing at all.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member is trying to refute the argument that political decisions were influenced by expenditure on propaganda.

Mr. Curran: I am saying that the arguments upon which that point of view are based are bogus and that the real reason why public opinion has changed has nothing to do with the spending of money, but with the propagation of ideas and the circulation of books. It is not bank books but story books that matter. 
Shute went on to write a series of novels about the Labour Government. He hated Socialism so bitterly that in the late 1940s, when he was nearly fifty years of age, he pulled up all his roots and moved to the other side of the world in order not to live under the Labour Government. The effect of the novels that he wrote about the Labour Government, each one of which was circulated in hundreds of thousands, has been enormous. 
I wish that the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who opened the debate, would get up and put his point instead of shouting unintelligible remarks. I am trying to put a reasoned case to the House. I hope that somebody who will reply to the Tory side of the House on this matter will deal with the hypothetical case which I propose to put now. 
There was published a few days ago, in London, a novel which, in my opinion, will have as big an effect on public
opinion in England in I960 as Orwell's novel——

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. May I ask you again, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and with the deepest respect, what in the world any novel not yet published can possibly have to do with the Amendment on the Order Paper?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot tell how the hon. Member will develop his argument.

Mr. Curran: This is an example of what I mean when I say that the arguments that have been used by hon. Members opposite are bogus. 
I repeat that a few days ago there was published in London a novel which, in my opinion, is likely to have as big an impact as Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty Four. I have no connection with the author, or with the publisher. The novel is entitled. When The Kissing Had to Stop. The hon. Gentleman's erudition will tell him that it is a quotation from Browning. The author of the novel is Constantine Fitzgibbon, a novelist whom I have never met. I want to make this point about it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is the publisher?"] Cassell. The novel imagines that the Labour Party wins the next General Election in this country and comes into power on a policy of closing the American bases and kicking out the Americans. The novel goes on to describe what happens in England then. It is curious that hon. Gentlemen opposite should have such a curious bias against books. 
The novel, in my opinion, will affect public opinion very powerfully because Mr. Fitzgibbon, like Nevil Shute, is a born story teller, crammed with talent. I want to put this hypothetical case to the Labour Party. Suppose that I were to call together a group of reactionaries, —a banker, a brewer, a land speculator, a road haulier and a steel baron—it would be like a witches' Sabbath—and say to them, "I want you to put up £l50,000 for the purpose of an advertising campaign."

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle upon-Tyne, West): Am I right in assuming that the hon. Gentleman classes the people whom he has mentioned as reactionaries?

Mr. Curran: Am I required to spell things out in words of one syllable? 
I want the House to imagine that I am prepared to raise £50,000 for an advertising campaign for this novel. Let us imagine that I, with the money which these reactionaries give me, promote a campaign to change public opinion about the nuclear bomb in England. Suppose


I send a free copy of the novel to every known opinion-maker in the land; every school teacher, every clergyman, every doctor, every don and undergraduate every university, and I also send a free copy to every Member of Parliament. Does the Labour Party want to forbid that sort of propaganda expenditure?
Such a book would do more to change the climate of British opinion about the Labour Party and about unilateral disarmament than all the propagandists, all the leaflets and speeches and all the activities of the Tory Central Office. Are we to be told that such expenditure is wrong, unjust, and ought to be made illegal?

Mr. Charles Pannell: Why does the hon. Gentleman want to circulate this book When the Kissing had to Stop, seeing that Nevil Shute, presumably with a curious degree of success, had already written On the Beach? Why could not Nevil Shute secure a great conversion with that?

Mr. Curran: The hon. Gentleman has asked why I want to circulate this book. I am trying to test the position of the Labour Party by putting a hypothetical case. Suppose that I were to raise funds for the purpose of distributing this book. I believe that by doing that I would make a considerable imapct on the opinion-forming classes of our society. I suggest that that kind of expenditure is perfectly legitimate, and to talk about making it illegal, about outlawing it, and about holding an inquiry into it, is to use the language of unreality.
The truth is that if the Labour Party is alarmed, I am sure that it is alarmed about the change in the climate of public opinion. It is no good its attacking the advertisers and the hoardings. Instead of making war on the advertisers, it must make war on the writers.
The big change in the climate of public opinion since the war has been produced primarily by the dealers in ideas, secondly, by a change in material conditions, and, least of all, by the efforts of advertisers, Press experts and public relations men.

Mr. J. Grimond: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I do not by any means say that it would be right to prevent the circulation of books, but does he not think it is anomalous that, while this can go on on an immense scale, during the election period the individual candidate is still bound by the most stringent rules, some of which hamper candidates severely? Why should everybody else be allowed to spend money and not the candidates? That is a point which should be inquired into.

Mr. Curran: There is a case for saying that the financial limitations now imposed on election candidates are out-of-date. They need to be revised. If anybody suggests that, I will not disagree.
I am concerned with the question which has been raised during the debate, whether we should hold an inquiry into political expenditure. I insist that the changes taking place in public opinion are not brought about by spending money. The people who spend money are simply exploiting the situation which has already been created by the change in ideas brought about by the dealers in ideas. It therefore seems to me that what the Socialists ought to do is to stop worrying about Colman Prentis and Varley and declare war on Nevil Shute and George Orwell. To attack the advertisers and ignore the authors is like trying to tackle smallpox by painting the spots. It is a piece of bogus reasoning.
The Socialist Party has to fight against the change which is taking place in ideas. That change is carrying it away and it cannot hope to stem that tide by passing restrictive laws. In a free society there is only one answer to an argument, and that is a better argument. It is no good trying the gag. I invite the House to agree with me that the case made by the right hon. Member for Smethwick falls to the ground, and that he has exhibited himself as no better than a typographical Torquemada.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) has entertained many members of the public on television, and it is a relief to know that now that the larger


audiences are deprived of his entertainment this does not relate to the whole of the British population; and there is still a small minority here who can be entertained by him. I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I do not relate any deathbed revelations, even of lifelong members of the Labour Party like George Orwell, nor indulge in book reviews because I do not think that that would be appropriate or relevant to the debate.
The hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir T. Low) was insistent that it should go on record that the Tory Party decided the shape of the campaign and not the publicists. I entirely agree. He is right. Let me turn to page 23 of Mr. Butler's and Mr. Rose's book where we read this:
Some posters issued in support of the national press campaign also linked photographs of children with slogans about opportunity and freedom from control. When a market-research survey found that the intended audience for these appeals were particularly anxious about getting their children into grammar schools, the party promptly altered the advertisements to show teenagers in gym tunics and blazers instead of toddlers and six-year olds.
We would not wish the political perspicacity of the Tory Party to go unrecognised in this House, and the hon. Member for Uxbridge, having spoken about the power of books circulated to every house in the country, and, therefore, the apparent lack of need for political propaganda, we congratulate the Tory Party on its generous and charitable support of the advertising industry
When the question of political expenditure arises, there always comes a sort of Mona Lisa smile on the faces of members of the Tory Party. I hope that we will go into details and get some answers. We have one advantage in that no other Home Secretary can ever had had such experience and such knowledge available to him of the workings of a political party. I shall address some questions to the Home Secretary, some to the Leader of the House, and some to the Chairman of the Tory Party.
Since 1854, there has always been in this country some form of control on the money which individual candidates may spend and the purposes to which they may devote that expenditure. The courts have even defined political election ex-

penditure as possibly running before the issue of the writ, and possibly before the adoption of the election agents.
The policy of our legislation, I suggest, is that the only significance in politics relates to 625 individual contests which occur during a short General Election period. That is the whole basis and philosophy underlying legislation. Yet we know how the climate of opinion is apparently changed in the bound works of Shakespeare, Sir Walter Scott and the first edition of "Aereopagitica", which the hon. Member for Uxbridge sees as fermenting ideas. All this happens between elections.
We have heard how the Conservative Party spent nearly £½ million in the 27 months before the last election and the Labour Party £103,000 in the two years before the election. In fact, the Conservative Party spent more money in selling the charms of the Prime Minister than the News of the World spent in selling those of Miss Diana Dors. We may note that, rejecting the candour shown by the News of the World, at least the Conservative Party did not display the Prime Minister in all his nakedness. That portrayal will come when public opinion is formed and the autumn by-elections are in progress.
We know that there are the eight organisations which spent £1½ million. They spent £400,000 more than the total cost of the General Election campaign. Now, we know the sources from which political parties draw their money. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some of them."] We know that some of the money of the Labour Party is drawn from the trade unions and some of the money of the Tory Party is drawn from big business, but we do not know the figures exactly concerning the Tory Party. Why should there be this secrecy? What has the Tory Party to hide? Why is it so embarrassed about publishing its accounts? The Liberal Party has published its accounts for twenty-five years and they have been audited.
What has the Tory Party to hide? Why should it be so frightened? Why this Mona Lisa smile when we ask the Tories to publish their accounts? I put this suggestion to the Tory party—I quote:
I should like the finances of the Tory Party to be open for inspection for anyone who may


wish to look at them, be he friend or foe. Where you allow secret expenditure you will certainly have corrupt expenditure; and where you have corrupt expenditure you will have vitiated elections, disfranchised boroughs, party disgrace and public scandal.
So spoke the father of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) at the Tory Conference in 1883. We all know what happened to his career. He forgot Goschen, but he also criticised his party—an unforgiveable sin, as the right hon. Member for Woodford himself learnt to his cost in the 1930s.
We are not saying that there should be a control of expenditure, but that there should be publicity about expenditure. Why should not shareholders know if their firm has contributed to a political fund? A little inquiry has been carried out by a shareholder who has been writing to the various big firms of which he happens to be a shareholder. He wrote to one firm and said:
As a shareholder in your company, I write inquire whether your firm make any contributions to the funds of any of the three political parties. If so, would you please inform me on what occasions over the past five years you have made contributions and of how much?
Here is one reply:
With reference to your letter … which has been sent on to me by our Registrars, it is not thought to be in the interests of the company that information of this nature should be disclosed. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to answer the question which you raise.
That is from British Ropes Limited, Doncaster.
Here is another letter:
I am directed to reply to your letter of 18th November, 1959. My directors instruct me to inform you that it is not the practice of the company to disclose details of payments made by the company, save as may be public published in the company's quarterly statement and annual accounts. In the opinion of my directors it would not be in the interest of the company to depart from this practice.
That is from the British South Africa Company, 11, Old Jewry, London.
Why should not shareholders know what sums of money are paid in this way? Only a fortnight ago, the Tory Party was pleading with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to encourage share spreading. It is the Tory Party which is the party of the small man, encouraging the spreading of wealth and desperately wanting a property-owning democracy.

Why have not those shareholders of whom the Tory Party speaks so fondly have the right to be protected? It is their money which is finding its way into the Tory Party.
The right hon. Member for Blackpool, North said that there are difficulties. There have always been difficulties about the Tory Party publishing its accounts. Let me, however, give the right hon. Member one or two examples of what has been done in other countries. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has been two months making his inquiries. That is an indication of the worry and strain that the exercise has caused him, but it is an amazing sign of the barrenness of the fruits which he has found.
In America, there is a ceiling on the total expenditure of any campaign and it is forbidden to receive or spend more than 3 million dollars a year. I would hate to restrict the Tory Party to such a small figure, but I am sure that with adjustment, a ceiling figure could be fixed. I am delighted that the right hon. Member is reading the Liberal News, in which much of this information is contained and which gives me the opportunity of giving that admirable publication the same sort of puff which the hon. Member for Uxbridge gave to his literary friends.

Mr. Curran: I made it as clear as words could make it that I disclaimed any personal interest of any kind in the authors to whom I referred.

Mr. Thorpe: I am reminded of the man who spent twenty-five years thinking he had learnt Chinese only to find, at the end, that all he had learnt was the language of the birds. All I can say of the hon. Member for Uxbridge is that he warbled in his full-throated way. He mentioned authors who were his friends, whose deathbed scenes he had attended and whose books he had read avidly. He disclaimed any interest other than merely the bond between authors, which I would not wish to sever and which, I am sure, the hon. Member would not wish the House to think did not exist. I hope that I may be forgiven for being drawn into irrelevancies by the hon. Member for Uxbridge, not for the first time.
Another aspect of American law which might well be considered is that individuals are restricted. They may not give


more than 5,000 dollars a year for any one candidate or committee. That might be a little restrictive on certain Conservative financiers, the sort of people who are president of the local association and do nothing except subscribe £5,000 or £6,000 a year. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) say that he wished that they did? How does he know?

Mr. William Yates: What I said was that the election expenses in my constituency were less for myself than for my Socialist opponent.

Mr. Thorpe: The particular is not sufficient for the general. It may well be that the Labour candidate needed more money spent on him—I do not know. Certainly, the Prime Minister had more money spent on him than Diana Dors had in her publicity and, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman needed it.
The next thing in America is that no corporation or trade union may contribute funds for elections for national offices. Under the Taft-Hartley Act, 1947, it is unlawful for any trade union or corporation to subscribe money to primaries or conventions. This suggests a few things for consideration by a committee of inquiry. Surely, the Conservative Party would like to feel, not that it was getting money from a firm in which there were unwilling shareholders, but that what it got came voluntarily from individuals knowing that they were receiving it and knowing that they were giving it because they wanted to support the Conservative Party.

Sir T. Low: The hon. Member has been quoting what happens in America, and he said that I had quoted from the Liberal News. He has left out the most important point made in the Liberal News, that those restrictions were so wholly ineffective that on the one occasion for which figures were obtained—1952—the total expenditure in the Presidential election amounted to 32 million dollars. Will the hon. Member explain this?

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I was coming to the point that the American restrictions are often breached. The right hon. Gentleman quoted with knowledge of this matter. Legislation which has been

tried in Florida since 1951, however, relating to political expenditure, has been found most satisfactory and effective. I assured the right hon. Gentleman that the mere fact that in one country the law is breached is no argument for saying that there is no need of control in this country.
That is what I say to the Tory Party. Would it not be much better if money came to the Tory Party from individuals and not from companies whose shareholders might be ignorant of such contributions and Who might oppose any contribution being made if they knew of it? Would they not sleep happier at nights if they knew that the payments were genuine?
As for the Labour Party, we know that everybody who pays the political levy is a passionate supporter of the Labour Party. Despite the fact that 30 per cent. of the people who call themselves manual workers do notvote Labour, they are, all, nevertheless, apparently, passionate supporters. Would not the Labour Party feel happier if it knew that every penny that it receives from trade union sources came from people who deliberately, voluntarily and consciously contracted in, so that no possible suggestion could be made that anyone paid simply because he felt that there was duress or that it might be politically inexpedient to contract out?
Let us have a clean-up all round. [An HON. MEMBER: "Lloyd-George."] I hear the name of Lloyd-George. I am very sorry that there should be disagreement in the Tory Party about this issue. Let me say, in fairness to it, that the Lloyd-George Fund was principally used for fighting five General Elections, for producing the inquiry on the land, known as the "Green Book," the "Yellow Book" on Britain's industrial future and the policy "We can cure unemployment". [An HON. MEMBER: "Give us the accounts."] If there is any doubt left in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, I add that one of the sole trustees of that fund is on the Tory benches in the House of Lords. He preceded the right hon. Gentleman as Home Secretary. I am delighted to find that at least there are some Tories in favour of publication of accounts. Let them come out in the open, and we shall look forward to their accounts with interest.
In West Germany, Article 21 of the Constitution states that political parties must publish the accounts of their funds from all sources. There is a democratic regime there which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Foreign Secretary is always ready and willing to defend. There is, I believe, a draft Constitution before the Bundestag—a copy of it is now in the Conservative Central Office—which is being considered. No doubt this was part of the right hon. Member for Blackpool's researches, but we have not seen the results.
The time has come for the two major parties to come out into the open market with their money. Do not let us have it quietly subscribed by firms and shareholders. Do not let it be possible to suggest that a trade unionist is subscribing because of the contracting-out system, but is opposed to such a subscription. We—the other Opposition Party—are asking in this Amendment, with the wholehearted support of our party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Both of them?"] Our percentage present on this occasion is somewhat higher than that of the other two parties.
We are asking for an inquiry. We say that a prima facie case has been made out. Now, if right hon. and hon. Members opposite go into the Lobby to vote against that demand they are saying that they do not want an inquiry—in which case the electorate can reasonably ask, "Have you anything to hide?" Alternatively, right hon. and hon. Members opposite will be saying that they are satisfied with the present system.
When Members opposite go into the Lobby people will see how the Tory Party reacts to the very simple request that it should consider examining political expenditure in this country. That is all. I suggest that two matters that we should consider are, first, that each political party should provide full, audited accounts, and, secondly, that companies, trade unions, and trade associations should state publicly how much money they have contributed to political organisations and parties. The Liberal Party does, the trade unions do, and the Tory Party should at last do so. This is an occasion for the party opposite to "come clean". It has always been told that it is the party of big

business. If it wants effectively to reject that suggestion, here, at last, is its opportunity to do so.

6.15 p.m.

Miss Alice Bacon: This debate has been marked by the first-class speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and by two putrid speeches from the benches opposite. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low) made a speech which was rather cheap. He made statements and produced absolutely no proof for them; he bandied about figures in a slick way—figures which were entirely wrong.
One example lies in his comparison of the incomes of the Tory Party and of the Labour Party. He compared the expenditure of the Tory Party on posters and newspaper advertisements alone with the whole annual income of the Labour Party for all its work and the salaries of its regional organisers and others. As to the speech of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), all that I can say about that is that he spent most of his time talking about books of fiction, and we can dismiss his speech as just that—fiction and hypothesis.
We are considering the expenditure of vast sums of money drawn from sources not revealed and spent in commercial advertising on an unprecedented scale just before the announcement of a General Election. I was not disappointed in my expectation that the position of the trade unions would be dragged into this debate as the main attack from the benches opposite.
Trade union political activities and expenditure are already controlled. They are completely controlled by law. When a trade union wishes to engage in political activity it must, first of all, pass a resolution to establish a political fund. After that, if the resolution is carried, there must be a ballot of its members supervised by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. If the ballot is successful and the fund is established, every member must be given the right to contract out, and the fund must be kept as a separate account. That is entirely different from the accounts and activities of big business firms.
The right hon. Member for Blackpool, North made great play of the fact that two-thirds of the political levy gathered


in by the trade unions was not shown in the accounts of the Labour Party. The answer to that is perfectly simple. I have here some of the accounts of the National Union of Mineworkers and the United Textile Factory Workers' Association. Their accounts—including the political—-are here for everybody to see. They give in very great detail how those two-thirds are spent.
Some of the N.U.M. money is spent in returning to this House miners who would never be here if there were no political fund in their union. Some is spent in constituencies, it is true, but it does not all go to the Labour Party Fund. In many areas it would be well nigh impossible for working men to take part in county councils and other local government activities were it not for the help they get from some of the political funds.
I have the accounts if any hon. or right hon. Member opposite would like to see them. The names of even some of my hon. Friends who are miners' representatives in the House are in the statements, together with the amounts expended on their election. Everything is above board. But let us turn to the accounts of another trade union—the Institute of Directors. These are not published openly. One of my hon. Friends has had the greatest difficulty in obtaining for me the report and accounts of the Institute of Directors for 1959.
I was attracted by one paragraph in the report, headed "Free Enterprise Campaign", which states:
What has generally been agreed to have been the most effective development in the Free Enterprise Campaign was the launching of the `Mind Your Own Business' booklet in May, 1959. This booklet, it will be recalled, listed over 500 companies threatened by nationalisation, and was followed up by forceful large-scale newspaper advertising of which the central theme was Is Labour for more State control—or not? '. Currently the Free Enterprise Campaign is financing a survey into the working of the free enterprise system in Britain.
I turned eagerly to the balance sheet to find out how much had been spent on the campaign, but I looked in vain for the item until I saw a footnote which said:
NOTES:
(i) The transactions of the Free Enterprise Campaign Fund which is sponsored by the Institute have not been included in the Accounts.

This shows how different is the law for trade unions and for big business.
We have heard today about the Conservative Party's expenditure on Press advertising and on posters, and I want to emphasise that this figure of £500,000—and I would say that this was a conservative estimate—is only for newspaper advertising and for posters. There should be added to it the cost of all the literature and of other services on which the Tory Party spent money. The figure would probably be much more.
In August, 1959 the poster campaign rose very sharply and in July and August of last year the Tory Party was the biggest advertiser in the country. I want to put to the House a point which I know many of my hon. Friends came across during the election. It is quite true that before the election some of these posters were taken down, but it is also true that the agents of the Tory Party were told that they could carry the poster sites forward into the election campaign itself, which meant that the Tory candidates had an advantage over many of my hon. and right hon. Friends in that their poster sites, and they were usually the best sites, were there ready for them.
There was newspaper advertising on a very big scale. It is not true, as the right hon. Member for Blackpool, North tried to imply, that we on this side of the House did not have a story to tell. We had, but when we looked at the cost of some of the newspaper advertising we had to say that it was beyond our resources. Half a page in the People, for example, cost £3,525. When one thinks of all the half-pages in which the Tory Party advertised, one realises what vast sums of money must have been spent. The hon. Member for Uxbridge spoke about the climate of opinion and how it was not created but only influenced in some way by advertising. Let us see, by one example, how that influence is exerted.
There were many newspaper advertisements bearing the heading "You are looking at a Conservative" but these advertisements were rather selective. In the News of the World the Conservative was depicted as a cloth-capped lumberman. In the Sunday Express he was depicted as a black-coated worker, in the Observer as a young scientist, and in the Sunday Pictorial as a working woman.
We do not know how much the Tory Party has spent because no accounts are published, but we firmly believe that the great political parties which can become Governments with favours to give ought to publish their accounts so that the country can see where they get their money.
We suspect that most of the Tory Party's money comes from big business and industry which, as we heard today, before the last election themselves entered the political field on a big scale. Figures have been given in the course of today's debate, and figures have also been published by Butler and Rose, but I believe that these figures are on the low side. Butler and Rose say that the Colin Hurry poll cost £475,000 whereas it was stated in the Daily Telegraph on 4th September, 1959, that it was understood that the Colin Hurry survey cost £600,000. This statement has not yet been denied.
The Iron and Steel Federation is an example of how money was spent by big business. It spent £68,000 in August, 1955. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, North has been giving us some of the answers today and I wonder whether he would care to answer a question of mine. I understand that the right hon. Member is a director of Dorman Long. Can he say how much the shareholders of Dorman Long contributed to this campaign? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is obvious that although the right hon. Member ought to know, since he is a director of the company, he does not intend to give the House this information.
The total spent on the anti-nationalisation campaign was £400,000 more than the total expenses of all candidates at the last General Election. There are three things about this advertising by these firms of which we ought to take note. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick pointed out, the dates were very interesting. They led up to a crescendo in August, 1959, the same month as that in which the maximum amount was spent by the Conservative Party. Could it have been that all these campaigns were being directed by some central organisation that knew the General Election date? It seems to me that this was so. Secondly, this expenditure is exempt from tax. Thirdly, the

accounts are so secret that not even the shareholders themselves, whose money is being spent, know the amount.
The Labour Party publishes its accounts in detail. We spent nothing on national newspaper advertising and only £22,000 on a poster campaign. I know that many reasons have been given, and perhaps as time goes on more will be given, for the result of the 1959 election. Certainly the Budget of 1959 had something to do with it. The Tory manipulation of finances to give an appearance of this country's financial and economic well-being had something to do with it, but there is no doubt that the money which the Tories and their allies spent before the General Election influenced the result of that election.
It has been said today that this is not the concern of Parliament. The Representation of the People Act lays down the maximum amount that can be spent by Parliamentary candidates. During the election every single penny has to be scrupulously accounted for, and woe betide the election agent who is even a shilling or two out in his accounts. What a farce all this is if, three weeks before the election campaign has begun, the election has already been won by unlimited expenditure on nation-wide advertising campaigns.
As we have heard today, the Conservative Party placed itself in the hands of an advertising agency, which produced the so-called image of the Tory Party by advertising methods. I believe that in doing this it introduced something into our political life which is alien to our British democracy. Do we want our politics run like this? Do we want British politics to become like a battle between two Madison Avenue advertising agencies? I believe that we do not, and I should like to quote from something written by Henry Fairlie in the Daily Mail of Thursday, 9th June. We have heard a good deal about the Daily Herald today, but a lot of other newspapers which always take the Tory point of view have not been mentioned.
Here is somebody writing in a Tory newspaper who has criticisms to make of the party's conduct at the last election Henry Fairlie says:
The Conservatives at the last election treated the electors as conditioned morons, who could be won by the methods used by commercial advertisers on T.V.


He goes on:
This was my first criticism of the Conservatives at the last election. My second was that they introduced into British politics a professionalism which should be automatically rejected by anyone who cares for the health of a free society.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has still to reply. We have not yet heard what the Government are going to do about this Motion on the Order Paper.
We are not laying down, nor asking for, any special things to be done. What we are calling for is an inquiry, and it is no reply whatever to say, "What about the trade unions, the co-ops and the constituency Labour Parties?" We should welcome that inquiry, and all these organisations would welcome it. They are quite willing to be investigated. What we have been trying to show today is that there ought to be an inquiry, and that there are grounds for that inquiry. We have nothing to hide. We have heard today that the Liberal Party, too, has nothing to hide. We are not asking for any specific action but for an investigation.
It may be that there might be difficulties about legislation, but the inquiry would discover that. Indeed, if the Government resist us and if they divide against our Motion, I think that we can come to one conclusion, which is that the Tory Party, and the Tory Party alone, wishes to hide what it is doing in its accounts behind the doors of the Tory Party Central Office.

6.34 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): We certainly have had a valuable debate on this Motion, which has been marked by fewer speeches than I have ever heard in a three-hour debate. They were long speeches, but they were speeches of good value and good quality, and I am sure that we all appreciated the spirit in which they were made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) put with great force a point which much annoyed the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and it was really quite a pleasure to see it. He put the very simple proposition that it is by ideas that people win elections and not by advertising, business methods or any-

thing else. That I believe to be profoundly true. It is because the party opposite has not projected its image to the country and because its ideas are not supported that it did not win the last election and is not at present the Government of this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge quoted Lord Keynes. I could not help remembering another quotation from Lord Keynes about the "assault of thoughts on the unthinking". I felt that very much when my hon. Friend was speaking, seeing how hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were writhing before his assault. Lord Keynes refers to wild words, but I thought that the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge were especially wise. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) attempted to raise this matter in an earlier debate, I think without success, so that we were all glad that he had an opportunity of putting his point of view today.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) made a series of observations, and I shall do my best, in my capacity as being responsible for legislation to reform the electoral law, and in other capacities, to answer him to the best of my ability. What impressed me, amongst other things, in his speech was the extraordinary statement, very satisfactory to us, that as a result of our victory in the last Election there were large rises in share values. That is very satisfactory. I cannot see that that can be regarded as anything other than a justification for the belief and confidence in a Tory Government. I do not myself stand for a boom in equity shares, or any sign or anything of that sort, but I cannot prevent the country showing its confidence.
It is a great deal better than the remark made by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) in the New Statesman of February, 1954, when he said that the new Labour Government would come into office in a situation in which, even if it attempted to implement its social reform "fair shares" programme, without doing anything else, the national reserves of gold, dollars and foreign exchange would pour out of the country in a torrent.


Hon. Members can choose which manifestation they like of the result of a political election.
Now I should like to discuss the arguments of the right hon. Member for Smethwick. He referred to Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, and showed that it provides:
No expenses shall, with a view to promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at an election, be incurred by any person other than the candidate, his election agent and persons authorised in writing by the election agent on account "—
inter alia—
of issuing advertisements, circulars or publications;
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a saving for
the publication of any matter relating to the election in a newspaper or other periodical;
The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask if there would be any amendment of this electoral law. I see the point which he mentioned about T.V. and the other point about postal votes, and, indeed, if there are any other points which hon. Members want to put to me at the Home Office they are fully entitled to do so. I will consider them in relation to the future of the electoral law, but I think that the representations ought to be made from both sides of the House and with as much experience of political electioneering and political experience as possible. I cannot at present give any undertaking about an amendment of the law, but I might say in passing, even in reference to this debate, that if there are any matters which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to put before me, whether arising from this debate or not, it is my constitutional duty to examine them, which is the phrase used in the book on the General Election, to which so much reference has been made.
The right hon. Gentleman then mentioned the Tronoh Mines case of 1952, and said that he had brought with him a full transcript. I have taken the trouble to acquaint myself with that case, and the conclusion is that the Act only prohibits unauthorised expenditure on propaganda in support of a particular candidate in a particular constituency.
It will not surprise anyone who attended the original debates in 1948 and the debates on the later consolida-

tion Measure in 1949, as I did, that that should have been found by the courts to have been the interpretation of the present law, and that the present law does not restrict expenditure on general political propaganda. It is part of my case, perfectly seriously and with as much conviction as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, the right hon. Member for Smethwick, or the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), to make it perfectly clear that there are very good reasons why the Act was drawn like that by the Labour Government of the time and very good reasons why we should maintain the law in that condition.
The view has been expressed that, by concentrating on expenses incurred by individual candidates, the present law is unrealistic in present-day political circumstances. That was put by the right hon. Gentleman in his comprehensive speech as being a case which we should consider. We have considered it and we shall consider it. One debate is not enough to decide this issue.
At first sight, the argument has certain superficial attractions. It has been said in the debate that, by concentrating on the period of the election, the law ignores the importance of work done between elections, and we have heard a certain amount about the rival merits of Press advertising and other forms of political propaganda.
Indeed, the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East went further than anybody else and said that it was absolutely alien to British democracy to indulge in political advertising of the type She mentioned. I should have liked to think that Press advertising for political purposes was an innovation of the Conservative Party, but I have looked at the records of recent politics and I am told that credit for that innovation, which the hon. Lady described as alien to British democracy, should go to Lord Morrison of Lambeth who used Press advertising on a very extensive scale in connection with the L.C.C. elections in 1934.

Miss Bacon: What I said was alien to our British democracy was what the Tory Party did in putting itself into the hands of an advertising agency, Colman Prentis & Varley.

Mr. Butler: I should have thought that that argument, which I can describe only as nonsense, would have been shot away by the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Sir T. Low). The Conservative Party has every right to use an agent, if it wants to do so, to undertake its advertising, because we have something good to offer, as has been proved by the results of the election; but to say that Conservative policy is in any way affected by this firm is absolute nonsense. The firm has nothing to do with policy and simply takes what is handed to it and puts it into the manner which it thinks most attractive.
By a combination of the agent and the principal, the principal being those who make Conservative policy, the matter is put before the British public in exactly the same way as Lord Morrison of Lambeth, one of the great political leaders of the party opposite, was the first to use political and Press advertising in this country. We must get these matters into some sort of proportion and some sort of understanding.
I want now to refer to the argument of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South who said that all the activity before the election had been unconstitutional. However sincere he may be in this matter, I think that he, too, is exaggerating. Surely it is not unconstitutional in a democracy to take every opportunity of putting one's case before the public, and that is precisely what we have done.
At this stage, I draw the attention of the House to these facts. Any restriction on political action is so contrary to the whole spirit of our laws that we must constantly beware lest we infringe the essential freedom of speech and propagation of ideas. I quote in my support what I said not long ago at Question Time to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Leader of the Liberal Party. This is a quotation from a leading article in the News Chronicle of 9th June. We have had a variety of newspapers quoted and, in deference to the speech of the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and his leader, I will now quote a Liberal newspaper which has some regard for the liberty of the subject and freedom.
It said:
If a national limit on party expenditure is enforced, what about cmpaigns on specific issues like nationalisation and nuclear disarmament? The first is, and the second may become, identified with a political party: but is the citizen to be denied the right to spend money on propagating his views because they may affect the party struggle? And how is trade union support for Labour to be supervised?
That represents the kernel of the perfectly serious problem which we have to consider as a result of right hon. and hon. Members opposite having initiated this debate.
The present law, it is true, involves a restriction on political activity and limits what a candidate can do or spend, or others spend on his behalf, to get himself elected. If we depart from that precise limitation, can we draw any other line which does not make nonsense of the freedom of speech? It has been suggested that as well as controlling what candidates spend at constituency level, the law should control what the political parties spend at the national level to promote their causes. That is what I referred to earlier as being superficially attractive.
Let us examine the consequences for British freedom of pursuing those ideas to their logical conclusion. I am bound to say that I cannot see how, in practice, such a provision could be enforced without some system of registering or incorporating political parties, which would involve a fundamental departure in British political practice with far-reaching consequences. I do not see, and I think that hon. Members of whatever political party will agree with me, how it would be possible in law to incorporate a political party. The only practical alternative to the present law seems to be the untenable proposition that political propaganda should be confined to politicians.
By that I mean that if we pass a law restricting expenditure on political activities, we have to draw the line somewhere, as I have said. Where do we draw the line? Is it between what is done by a political party and what is done by an outside body; between what is done by an affiliated body and what is done, for example, by the Nuclear Disarmament Campaign? Are we to regard the latter as political or not? Are we


to regard splinter groups attacking the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as being separate from him, or are we not? Are we to regard Tribune as an affiliate of the incorporated Labour Party, or are we not? Are we to regard the Trade Union Congress as political, affiliated as trade unions are to the Labour Party, or are we not?
All those questions arise and I am the last to say that I regret those opportunities for expression of opinion. Indeed, my whole thesis, speaking as I am as the Minister primarily responsible for the preservation of freedom in this country, is that the more we have of expression of opinion the better, and in what I am saying there is not a word of criticism of any of those things.
Much has been said about the expenditure of large sums of money. I read in the Press that last year Odhams Press subsidised the Daily Herald to the extent of some £225,000, in round figures, a figure which, incidentally, seems likely to increase rather than diminish in future. I mention it not because I have any objection, but only to show that I find it extremely difficult to see how one can frame a law which will include that, whether political parties are incorporated or not.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will find that the accounts were published.

Mr. Butler: They were published but not authenticated, because before the debate I made every effect to find the exact figure but was not able to do so, which was why I said that the figure was about £225,000 in round terms. Being fair, I did not want to be inaccurate, nor to give the impression that this was an authenticated figure.
A remark was made about the Cooperative movement. We have no idea of the expenditure of the Co-operative movement to support Reynolds News, or to what extent political activities are supported by Co-operative funds. I do not object to that. I simply say that I have no idea and that I do not want to pass a law which would be incapable of definition.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that,

difficult as it may be to draw these lines of distinction, they are in fact drawn under the existing law for the election period? If they can be drawn for that period, why should they not be drawn for a longer period?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) missed the earlier part of my speech, which was of a serious character, intimating that they are not only limited to the period of the election. I listened carefully when the right hon. Member for Smethwick was speaking. He sought to achieve electoral limitations. The point of the present law, beyond which I cannot at present see a line which it is possible to draw, is that the expenses are attached to a candidate. That is the sense of the present law. If we go beyond that, I do not see how we can achieve sense or how we shall maintain freedom.
A good deal of fuss has been raised in the debate. I understand that perfectly. I do not object to the agitation. I am trying to indicate that it would be very difficult to draw the law in a new sense. To prohibit the expenditure of political parties would be as nothing in difficulty, compared with preventing expenditure by firms threatened, for example, by nationalisation, or, for that matter, trade unions spending money on protecting the policy they favour. To take legislative action to stop that would be very difficult.
This is a very dangerous proposal. The firms which engaged in the campaign against nationalisation sincerely believed that their system of ownership and control was better than the alternative of nationalisation. We on this side are against nationalisation. These firms were dead against nationalisation.
I would remind the House of a broadcast made by Mr. Herbert Morrison, as he then was, on 10th January, 1946, in which he said this:
It is up to the nationalisers to prove their case that there will be public advantage by nationalisation. It is no less up to the anti-nationalisers to prove their case that the public interest can best be served by private ownership.
The party opposite would have a great deal better Chance of getting back to power if its members were as definite on these matters as those people who want to save their own industries from nationalisation.

Mr. C. Pannell: Even if we concede the point so far, will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the short point that, if the nationalisers and anti-nationalisers are allowed to spend money, it would be in the interests of democracy for them to publish the amount of money spent?

Mr. Butler: I have not very long, because both the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East and I agreed not to be long. I have here the exact terms of the Act of 1913 dealing with trade unions, which I agree lay down a situation in Section 3. It is a very long Section which includes a definition of the type of political activity, but it also includes the words:
without prejudice to the furtherance of any other political objects.
It is extremely hard to define, even if one takes the trouble to examine the Statute with that reservation, how trade unions are limited in the great work that they do on behalf of the Labour Party in the political field.
I have been asked why there cannot be a similar regard for what companies do in relation to their shareholders. I refer the House with all sincerity to the investigation into company law being undertaken at present by Lord Justice Jenkins. We must await the conclusion of his Report, because this is part of the general remit to the Committee.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is that covered?

Mr. R. A. Butler: It is covered. That is, in part, the answer to some of the apprehensions expressed today.
I do not want to detain the House on foreign experience, but I must honestly say that from what I have examined of foreign experience—whether in America, Norway or Sweden—it is extremely difficult to cite foreign experience in respect of this plan. Mr. Key, who wrote probably the most thoughtful book on American politics, parties and pressure groups, says this about the experiment in America:
If the taws in force have any effect, they probably contribute to the disorganisation of the parties, help conceal the size and sources of campaign funds, and bring about a more immediate sense of indebtedness of candidates to donors …
I do not want to see that sort of thing here. I do not believe that it is successful.
The Swedish Parliamentary Commission advised against any legislation to compel parties to publish accounts. That is in the Svenska Dagbladet of 1951, Volume 121, According to the same source, which I have looked up, the Parliamentary Commission rejected the idea that political parties should be compelled either to publish regular accounts or to account for expenditure on electoral propaganda. The same is true of Norway, where the Royal Commission advised against compulsory publication. Therefore, I must cite foreign experience as being extremely unfriendly to the ideas put forward by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
I think that in the short time at my disposal I have managed to give some answer to the points raised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I do not wish to avoid, even in these last few minutes, their challenge that we should publish accounts. In speaking of this matter, I am led to examine what happens when accounts are published. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North drew attention to the fact that in the Liberal Party accounts of 1958 the party revenue is shown as only £21,774. This is how £20,558 of it is described—"donations and subscriptions". We do not learn very much from that.

Mr. Thorpe: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that certainly goes further than the practice of the Conservative Party? Is he aware that, if he wanted further details, they would be readily available to him or anyone making a request?

Mr. Butler: This debate may lead to a very agreeable interview between myself, the hon. Member for Devon, North and his friends. As for the accounts of the Labour Party—this shows how foreign experience is not much at variance in this—the Labour Party accounts, which I have examined as closely as I can, do not include the income and expenditure of constituency Labour parties, the revenue of which was estimated by the former hon. Member for Reading, Mr. Mikardo, in 1955, at nearly £1 million. They do not include the large balance of the political funds of trade unions, used to finance the election of more than one-third of the Parliamentary Labour Party. They do not


include the similar expenditure of the Co-operative Party, used to finance Labour Parliamentary candidates. Nor do they include expenditure by the unions or the Co-operative Party on what is broadly described as "political education."
While I do not doubt that right hon. and hon. Members opposite imagine that they are doing as much as they can to make their accounts a reality, I assure them that the accounts of both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party are simply not a reality. I do not believe that they add anything to what we know or what we should know.
My conclusion is the same as my opening remarks. The debate has aired a grievance. It will, to that extent, have done good. As the Minister responsible for electoral law, I will undertake, as I said in my opening remarks, to follow up the points raised by the right hon. Member for Smethwick and continue, in the words of the book on the election, which has been discussed so much, to see that the situation is properly examined.
In response to the arguments which have been raised, I can only put forward our impression, which is a very fair one and one backed by foreign

experience, that it would be contrary to freedom to try to incorporate political parties. It would be contrary to freedom to enlarge the boundaries of the present Act without further examination. In the circumstances, we have absolutely no alternative to opposing the Motion.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Before the right hon. Gentleman completes his speech, will he tell us what he means by a proper examination? Would not a proper examination include some participation by the other two parties in the House?

Mr. Butler: As I said in my opening remarks, if right hon. and hon. Members opposite wanted to submit any case to me—which, I suggest, should be rather more watertight than the case they have put this afternoon—I would consider it.

Mr. John Rankin: Mr. Speaker, in the few remaining seconds, perhaps I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Co-operative Party's accounts are published separately from the Labour Party accounts, and that he can have a copy if he is interested.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 181.

Division No. 143.]
AYES
[7.1 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Duncan, Sir James


Aitken, W. T.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Duthie, Sir William


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Eden, John


Allason, James
Cary, Sir Robert
Emery, Peter


Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M.
Channon, H. P. G.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Amery, Julian (Preston)
Chataway, Christopher
Errington, Sir Eric


Arbuthnot, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Farr, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fell, Anthony


Balniel, Lord
Cole, Norman
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Barter, John
Collard, Richard
Foster, John


Batsford, Brian
Cooper, A. E.
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Berkeley, Humphry
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Freeth, Denzil


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Cordie, John
Gammans, Lady


Bidgood, John C.
Corfield, F. V.
Gardner, Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Bingham, R. M.
Coulson, J. M.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Bishop, F. P.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Black, Sir Cyril
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Bossom, Clive
Critchley, Julian
Goodhart, Philip


Bourne-Arton, A.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Goodhew, Victor


Box, Donald
Crowder, F. P.
Green, Alan


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cunningham, Knox
Grimston, Sir Robert


Boyle, Sir Edward
Curran, Charles
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Braine, Bernard
Currie, G. B. H.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Brewis, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Dance, James
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brooman-White, R.
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Deedes, W. F.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Bryan, Paul
de Ferranti, Basil
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bullard, Denys
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Doughty, Charles
Hay, John


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Drayson, G. B.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel




Hendry, Forbes
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Sharples, Richard


Hiley, Joseph
Madden, Martin
Shaw, M.


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maitland, Sir John
Shepherd, William


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir H.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Marlowe, Anthony
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marshall, Douglas
Smithers, Peter


Hirst, Geoffrey
Marten, Neil
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hocking, Philip N.
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Holland, Philip
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Speir, Rupert


Hopkins, Alan
Mawby, Ray
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hornby, R. P.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Mills, Stratton
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stodart, J. A.


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Montgomery, Fergus
Studholme, Sir Henry


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Morgan, William
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Morrison, John
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Tapsell, Peter


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Teeling, William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Noble, Michael
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nugent, Sir Richard
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. D.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Jackson, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


James, David
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Jennings, J. C.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Page, Graham
Turner, Colin


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Partridge, E.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Peel, John
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Percival, Ian
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Kirk, Peter
Pitman, I. J.
Wall, Patrick


Lambton, Viscount
Pitt, Miss Edith
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pott, Percivall
Watts, James


Langford-Holt, J.
Powell, J. Enoch
Webster, David


Leavey, J. A.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Leburn, Gilmour
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Whitelaw, William


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lilley, F. J. P.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Rees, Hugh
Wise, A. R.


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Renton, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Longbottom, Charles
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Woodhouse, C. M.


Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodnutt, Mark


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Woollam, John


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


McAdden, Stephen
Robson Brown, Sir William
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


MacArthur, Ian
Roots, William



McLaren, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Russell, Ronald
Colonel J. H. Harrison.


McMaster, Stanley R.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan





NOES


Ainsley, William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Albu, Austen
Darling, George
Grimond, J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Awbery, Stan
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hannan, William


Beaney, Alan
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Deer, George
Hayman, F. H.


Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'IS. E.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Healey, Denis


Benson, Sir George
Dempsey, James
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)


Blackburn, F.
Diamond, John
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Blyton, William
Dodds, Norman
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Driberg, Tom
Hilton, A. V.


Boyden, James
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Holman, Percy


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Houghton, Douglas


Brockway, A. Fenner
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Howell, Charles A.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Evans, Albert
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Finch, Harold
Hunter, A. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fletcher, Eric
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Forman, J. C.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Callaghan, James
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Janner, Barnett


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Ginsburg, David
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gooch, E. G.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Crosland, Anthony
Grey, Charles
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)







Kelley, Richard
Oram, A. E.
Spriggs, Leslie


Kenyon, Clifford
Oswald, Thomas
Steele, Thomas


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Owen, Will
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


King, Dr. Horace
Paget, R. T.
Storehouse, John


Lawson, George
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stones, William


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pargiter, G. A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington. N.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Lipton, Marcus
Pavitt, Laurence
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Frederick
Swain, Thomas


McCann, John
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Swingler, Stephen


MacColl, James
Popplewell, Ernest
Symonds, J. B.


McInnes, James
Prentice, R. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Mackie, John
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Thompson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


McLeavy, Frank
Rankin, John
Thornton, Ernest


Mahon, Simon
Reid, William
Thorpe, Jeremy


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Reynolds, G. W.
Tomney, Frank


Manuel, A. C.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wainwright, Edwin


Mapp, Charles
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Warbey, William


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Weitzman, David


Marsh, Richard
Ross, William
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mayhew, Christopher
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mellish, R. J.
Short, Edward
Whitlock, William


Mendelson, J. J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wilkins, W. A.


Millan, Bruce
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Willey, Frederick


Mitchison, G. R.
Skeffington, Arthur
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Monslow, Walter
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Moody, A. S.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Morris, John
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Moyle, Arthur
Snow, Julian
Zilliacus, K.


Mulley, Frederick
Sorensen, R. W.



Oliver, G. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead.


First Resolution read a Second time.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. Michael Hughes-Young (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Committee tomorrow.

SUPPLY

REPORT [20th July]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61; ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1960–61; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1960–61; NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61; ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61; AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61; NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1958–59; ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1958–59; AIR EXPENDITURE, 1958–59

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1960–61

CLASS V

VOTE 5

1. £345,672,485, National Health Service. England and Wales.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1960–61, NAVY ESTIMATES, 1960–61, ARMY ESTIMATES, 1960–61, AIR ESTIMATES, 1960–61, AND CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61

2. That a sum, not exceeding £42,535,460, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the

sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for expenditure in respect of the services included in the following Ministry of Defence, Navy, Army, Air and Civil Estimates. viz.:—

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1960–61, NAVY ESTIMATES, 1960–61, ARMY ESTIMATES, 1960–61, AIR ESTIMATES, 1960–61, AND CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1960–61, NAVY ESTIMATES, 1960–61, ARMY ESTIMATES, 1960–61, AIR ESTIMATES, 1960–61, AND CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61



£


Ministry of Defence
11,045,000


Navy Estimates, Vote 12, Admiralty Office
9,915,000


Army Estimates, Vote 3. War Office
6,520,000


Air Estimates, Vote 3, Air Ministry
5,750,000


Civil Estimates, Class II, Vote 1 (Foreign Service) (including a Supplementary sum of £32,150)
9,305,460


Total
£42,535,460

NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1958–59

3. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,451,653 8s. 3d. out of Surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March, 1959, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 18th February, 1960 (H.C. 122) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their First Report (RC. 219).

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1958–59

4. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £2,351,301 3s. 10d. out of Surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March, 1959, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 11th February, 1960 (H.C. 118), and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their First Report (H.C. 219).

AIR EXPENDITURE, 1958–59

5. That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £573,720 8s. 6d. out of Surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March, 1959, to defray expenditure in respect of Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned for those Services and to meet a deficit in receipts not offset by a saving in expenditure from the respective Vote as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 15th February, 1960 (H.C. 119), and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their First Report (H.C. 219).

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1960–61

CLASS I

6. That a sum, not exceeding £11,045,002, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS II

7. That a sum, not exceeding £63,267,498, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS III

8. That a sum not exceeding £71,086,258, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS IV

9. That a sum, not exceeding £137,810,315, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS V

10. That a sum, not exceeding £542,178,092, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will

come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VI

11. That a sum, not exceeding £183,530,845, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VII

12. That a sum, not exceeding £56,376,197, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS VIII

13. That a sum, not exceeding £202,828,123, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS IX

14. That a sum, not exceeding £243,755,157, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates.

CLASS X

15. That a sum, not exceeding £401,388,250, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates.

ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1960–61

16. That a sum, not exceeding £290,370,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments.

NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61

17. That a sum, not xceeding £229,276,010, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services.

ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61

18. That a sum, not exceeding £169,750,010, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge


which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services.

AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61

19. That a sum, not exceeding £128,060,010, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services.

[For details of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1960; cols. 626–632.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

HOSPITALS

7.12 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I beg to move, to leave out "£345,672,485 ", and to insert "£345,671,485", instead thereof.
In the short time at my disposal, I propose to focus attention on certain conditions obtaining in our hospitals in order to try to elicit information which we failed to obtain at Question Time.
The whole House is familiar with the repeated complaints about the interminable delay in proceeding with some project which has already been approved, about the long waiting lists and the inadequacy of certain services. Over the years, I have listened to these repeated complaints, generally on Mondays, and, in consequence, I have been left with the impression that the approach of the Minister to the Service is completely haphazard and lacking in co-ordinated policy.
I hope that when the Minister speaks he will not plead that he had only £22 million or £25 million, or is going to have only £31 million, for capital expenditure and that therefore he is unable to respond to the requests from both sides of the House. I would emphasise that capital expenditure does not necessarily determine the quality of work in a hospital. The service should be measured by the degree of integration between the three parts of the National Health Service—namely, the hospitals, the general medical and dental services, and the services administered by the local health authorities. Only when this co-

ordination has been secured and the emphasis place on preventive work and the domiciliary services, will the hospitals be used intelligently and economically. Therefore, in the first place, I would say that my proposals call not for more money but for first-class administration, which is sadly lacking.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the long waiting lists. These long waiting lists, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary seek to explain time after time, are in part due to the failure to co-ordinate the local services. It is not surprising that there is a growing volume of complaint. In the last report, it was revealed that the hospital waiting lists rose to 476,000 at the end of 1959–33,000 more than the year before. Now we are told that, of patients seeking advice in the first place, 30 per cent. have a complaint which has a psychogenic origin. This in itself emphasises that there should be greater integration outside the hospitals to relieve pressure on the out-patients.
Again, on preventive work, the Minister comes to the House time after time and tells us how the poliomyelitis service is developing. We are told how many injections have been given and what he proposes to do in this work. But what of the other preventive work? The Minister never comes to the House to tell us that there is any co-ordination between his Department, the Ministry of Labour and the Home Office in order that the problem of occupational diseases can be approached. I do not have to remind hon. Members that, whereas tuberculosis has been reduced, the incidence of bronchitis, particularly in industrial areas, is very high. Bronchitis is not only related to pollution of the air, but to the conditions of work in industrial areas.
What has the Department done? What has the right hon. and learned Gentleman done? I should like him to give me his attention. He has not done so yet.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): On the contrary. I do not know why the right hon. Lady should make that sudden, savage and


unprovoked attack on me. I am listening with all my customary attention and a good deal of incredulity evoked by the right hon. Lady's observations.

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not be so sensitive. His interjection has shown the House precisely what his attitude is to these important problems. His interjection is characteristic of his approach on Mondays.

Brigadier Sir Otho Prior-Palmer: Let us get on.

Dr. Summerskill: There we are again, intervening.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It was not I.

Dr. Summerskill: Well, his master's voice. What I was going to say was that I prefer the front of the Minister's head to the back. If he will listen to what I am saying, it might help him in the future. His behaviour now, as I say, is characteristic of his attitude to these appeals.
It seems that the doctors at the British Medical Association Conference at Torquay this year were highly critical of the Minister's totally inadequate planning. This is surprising, as the British Medical Association is a Conservative organisation. Has he read what the chairman of the consultants and specialists said? One would have thought that, as we have a Conservative Government in power, the doctors might have dealt tenderly with the Minister. Far from it. He has just tackled me; I forget how he described my approach, which so far has been very gentle. These are only the opening remarks. What some of the doctors at Torquay, who I am sure voted for the Conservative Government, said about the Minister's handling and his lack of planning is very surprising.
An even more alarming note was struck in the article by a special correspondent in The Times on 16th June. I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that The Times is not a Labour newspaper. In an article on the future of the hospitals, with the title "Is there Crisis on the Way?" the writer says:
This crisis, if it occurs, will be due to the failure of planning and building to keep abreast of the money available.

I emphasise that point. I have already said that I hope the Minister will not tell the House the amount of money that he has spent. The criticism of him and his Department is their failure to plan and to keep abreast of the money available.
This special correspondent goes on:
Apart from the encouragement given to mental hospital schemes and new towns, it is not easy to see any clear-cut policy concerning priorities, whether, indeed, a comprehensive search has been made for the areas with the most urgent need.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) is in his place. Time after time, he has pleaded for more attention to be paid to the North-East Coast. Time after time, he has pointed out that the waiting lists in that part of the country are longer than they are anywhere else and that there has been delay in planning. This is not just the voice of the Opposition. It is the voice of the special correspondent of The Times and the voice of the doctors' organisation at Torquay. They said precisely the same thing. The Minister has failed completely in recognising priorities and in planning.
Last Monday, there were two Questions about the maternity services. I understand that the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary recently received a deputation from the new town of Harlow. Harlow has the highest birthrate in the country, yet still it has no special accommodation for its maternity cases. In Harlow, young mothers have no opportunity to go into hospital to have their first child.
I have given these details to indicate the Minister's lack of appreciation of priorities and lack of planning. Time after time, I have asked what determines the priorities, but I have never received a satisfactory answer. It seems that we have to wait for a serious state of affairs to develop before vigorous action is taken.
No doubt, greater attention will now be paid to the repeated complaints of hon. Members about the lack of adequate accommodation and the failure fully to implement the Cranbrook Report since the startling report on confidential inquiries into maternal deaths in England and Wales between 1955 and 1957. This report has been leaked to the Press. Apparently, it was not to be


made public until the House rose. This is very significant. This was a report about which the House should have known. The Minister should have anticipated a debate on health. I find it difficult to understand why he should not. Wales had a day on Tuesday, and such was the dismay among my hon. Friends from Wales that they said that the subject of the debate should be health because the Minister's administration was so unsatisfactory. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there was no collaboration; I had no idea that health was the subject chosen for Tuesday's debate on Welsh affairs. In the knowledge that almost certainly there would be a debate on health before the House rose, the Minister should have seen to it that the report was published. He did nothing of the kind. It was leaked to the Press.
The Daily Telegraph had a long report about it. If the Minister likes to deny any of the things which were said, he may, but he did not do so last Monday. When I reminded him of the shocking revelations in the report, he contented himself by giving us figures of the number of women who had survived childbirth, the most inept and cynical answer I have ever heard in the House. Most people do not die of cancer. Most people are not killed on the roads. But is that a reason for complacency?
I see my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in his place. I have read the speech he made last Tuesday, when he focussed attention on the fact that the infantile mortality rate, the stillbirth rate and the death rate for children in the first week were higher in Wales than in England. He, too, emphasised that the situation did not call for complacency. This report on maternal mortality should galvanise the Minister into action. What it reveals is reminiscent of conditions in the early part of the century, and it is an indication of the deterioration of the Health Service under the Conservative Government.
On 11th July, the Daily Telegraph said:
More than 180 women died after Caesarian operations … In some cases, there was a failure to give a blood transfusion. Other deaths were due to the inexperience of the surgeon, and sometimes a consultant was called too late.

This brings me to the matter which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) concerning the practice of allowing junior members of the staff to do work which should more properly be undertaken by their seniors. This is not a party matter. It is something about which hon. Members on both sides of the House should be anxious. We understand from the report on maternal deaths that these unfortunate women lost their lives owing to the incompetence or inexperience of certain individuals. What is being done to protect the public from the inexperienced doctor who is told to deputise for his superior? In my view, the public is entitled to a periodic inspection of the quality of medical care in our hospitals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange reminded the House that a consultant who was expected to be in charge was not there but a deputy. The consultant did not turn up. I put the practical point to the hon. Lady that if consultants do not turn up their remuneration should be reduced. Is any action of any kind taken by the Ministry? Is there an inquiry made in order to protect people? No answer was forthcoming and no answer has been forthcoming, except, I think, on one occasion a letter did follow telling me that these things had been followed up.
In medicine, experience is of tremendous importance. A case of Caesarian section is rushed into hospital. Perhaps there was not adequate accommodation in the first place. The woman was at home, and then it is decided that there should be a Caesarian operation. But then, we understand, in certain cases the operation has been done by inexperienced people, consultants were not called, and so on. In all these oases, there should be a follow-up to find out precisely why there was inadequate attention in the hospital concerned.
I come now to the Minister's complete failure to provide adequate facilities in our hospitals for the training of dentists. From both sides of the House, Questions have been asked on this subject time and time again, but the Minister has failed to respond to the demands which have been made. Hon. Members have asked why the children in their constituencies have not had adequate dental treatment,


and this has been going on for years. If it was not of long standing, I should not complain, but it has been going on for years. I have asked whether candidates have been forthcoming, and I have been told that there would be plenty of dental candidates. Wales has been told that a dental hospital is to be established there. I think I am right in saying—the right hon. and learned Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong—that in this dental hospital the first student in Wales will not be trained until two or three years from now.
There has been great pressure for more accommodation to be provided for the training of dentists, and, as I say, this has gone on not for months but for years. The result is what we have expected. In his presidential address to the British Dental Association in Edinburgh on 13th July, just over a week ago, Mr. Duncan MacGregor said:
The dental welfare and treatment of children amounts to a national scandal".
It was estimated that the minimum proportion of dentists required was one to 3,000 children. At present, the average was one to 7,000 and, in many cases, one to 10,000.
It was stated at the dental conference that the incidence of dental decay was higher than ever and that the treatment of children in local authority schools throughout the country was less adequate than it was ten years ago. I would remind the House that that was about the time when the present Government came into office. Therefore, I think I am right in saying that there are serious signs of deterioration in the Health Service. This is a shocking indictment of the Tory Party's administration of that service. I was not surprised, when I read the report of the Welsh debate on Tuesday, to find strong criticism of the Minister by Welsh Members. I have told the House of the condition of dental caries in children in England, but, according to the figures, the position is far worse in Wales.
I hope that the Minister will not suggest that all these failures of administration are due to the fact that the Treasury has been parsimonious. Everything that I have mentioned so far can be traced to a lack of planning, a failure to recognise priorities, and the absence of a positive and vigorous lead. All

the time—just as he has demonstrated today—the Minister has been on the defensive. We are only too anxious to help in our constituencies, but this absence of a positive lead marks the right hon. and learned Gentleman's approach to the Health Service.
I hope that he will not plead a shortage of money when he allows such a wastage of public money on drugs. Every year since the Minister has been in office, the drug bill has increased. The total cost in hospital and outside is now approximately £86 million. The Comptroller and Auditor General says that the profits of the drug firms, and especially the American-controlled firms, are well above the average for general industry.
In 1957, the drug manufacturers came to a three-year agreement with the Ministry. It has completely failed. The cost of prescriptions has risen every year. Last year, the total cost increased by £7 million. Although the prescribing of doctors in the general medical service is investigated to some extent, I should like to know precisely what control is imposed. The Minister must know that the general practitioner often makes the excuse that a hospital doctor prescribes an expensive proprietary drug and then expects him to continue the prescription.
Each time that I have ventilated this outrageous exploitation of the National Health Service, the Minister has assured me that he would make an announcement this month—when the three-year agreement came to an end. Hon. Members know that I have raised this matter on many occasions. I have been criticised because, on one occasion, I suggested that somebody was interested in the drug houses—but it was proved that I was quite correct. I have always said that a mistake was made in negotiating this agreement. What has the Minister to say? Is it really the fact that he has promised the vultures of the pharmaceutical industry yet another six months in which to make their unholy profits at the expense of the community? Surely the Minister has not done this. This is not a party matter; £86 million is coming out of the pockets of supporters of hon. Members on both sides of the House by way of taxes. I cannot understand why the Treasury has not taken a stronger line.
My last word concerns the non-medical staffs in hospitals. Many of them are so imbued with a sense of vocation that they are reluctant to press their claims for better conditions. Although new hospitals and new buildings are attractive, I always attach most importance to the quality of the people who serve in them. If the people serving in these non-medical jobs have a sense of grievance, they withdraw their services after a time, and then the Minister deplores the fact that there is a shortage of practising midwives or mental nurses, or radiographers. That is in spite of the fact that he has failed consistently over the years to anticipate these shortages, which arise because of the bad conditions and low pay, and the consequent deterioration in the service concerned. This is extremely difficult to understand, because pressure has been put on the Minister not for months or weeks but for years. He has been asked to take action, but he has not done so until it has seemed that a crisis is threatened.
There is no time to deal with further details in the short time available. I have endeavoured to show that there is clear evidence of a deterioration in the National Health Service, owing to a failure to integrate the Service, to recognise priorities, and to check results by the effects on the patients themselves.

7.36 p.m.

Lord Balniel: One of the most welcome sentences that I have seen in any of the Ministry of Health Annual Reports for many years is that used by my right hon. and learned Friend in the introduction to this year's Report, to the effect that the hospital building programme has now entered a period of steady expansion. I found the remarks of the right hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) bordering on the ungenerous. I should have thought that, irrespective of party, any hon. Member who is interested in the National Health Service would wish to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on securing from the Treasury a considerably increased sum of money for the hospital building programme. There was not a word about that from the right hon. Lady. Surely that is something in which we can all take a fair amount of pleasure.
The expenditure on new hospital buildings has increased from £10 million in 1955–56 to £31 million next year, which means that there has been a trebling in five years. I should have thought that that was a matter for congratulation, and not the occasion for a speech on a very sour note, such as we had from the right hon. Lady. Indeed, I would have thought that all those who are interested in health would have heaved a sigh of relief at the knowledge that priority, which for many years was rightly focused very narrowly on housing and education, has at last been widened to include the hospital service.
Although we should wish to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend, none of us has any inclination towards complacency. The shift of emphasis to the Health Service has not come too soon. It is a remarkable fact that one-third of our children are now being educated in post-war schools; indeed, within the next two years two-thirds of all our children will be educated in schools built since the war. Yet only one hospital has been built and put into operation since the war.
We must not be complacent about this. In spite of the war damage—and we have only to have tea on the Terrace and look across the Thames in order to see how slow has been the process of repair of war damage—and in spite of the neglect of post-war years and the fact that two-thirds of our hospitals still in use were built before 1891, and that 20 per cent. of all the hospitals now in operation are over a hundred years old, we are spending less, in real terms, on new hospital building than we managed to spend in 1939. Far from being complacent, we all naturally wish to impress upon my right hon. and learned Friend the importance of spending yet further sums on the improvement of our hospitals.
In passing, I very much doubt whether any of us has much idea of what in the present affluence of the country, is the correct capital programme that we should devote to hospital building. As was pointed out in the article in The Times to which the right hon. Lady referred, there has not been a national survey of our hospital needs since the survey conducted during the war. I rather doubt whether any of us, including my right hon. and learned Friend,


has much basis on which to assess the needs of our hospitals.
The only basis which we have is an emotional one, a sense of disgust which we all have that in the second half of the twentieth century so many of our doctors and nurses have to work in conditions which are very much out of date and that so many patients have to be treated in conditions which are not satisfactory. These conditions are put into contrast only by the wonderful care and devotion of our doctors and nurses in difficult conditions.
If we insist, as naturally we do, on yet more money being spent on our hospital building programme, we have a duty not merely to cry out for more money, but to examine the administrative structure by which the hospitals are built and to make certain that we get the very best value for our money. In particular, we should look at the two authorities which are charged with the responsibility of building hospitals, the Ministry and the regional boards. We must try to achieve a fair balance between these two authorities, a fair balance designed to achieve, on the one hand, efficiency and rapidity of building and, on the other, responsibility to Parliament and control of cost. I am not sure that we have yet achieved the perfect balance 'between these two authorities.
For a short time, I had the privilege of serving as a member of one of the regional hospital boards. My interest in serving on the board was in the building of the first post-war general hospital, the new Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield Hospital, a £2 million project. This hospital was given the highest priority in the country. Indeed, we were privileged recently to have my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister come to lay the foundation stone.
This new hospital has, quite rightly, been given the highest priority, because the needs of my constituents are, possibly, more grave and urgent than the needs of any other people in the country. In spite, however, of the prestige which attaches to the building of the first postwar hospital, in spite of the urgent needs of my constituents and in spite of the priority which is given to this project, never in my life have I seen in what, after all, amounts to a business opera-

tion—the building of a hospital—such pettifogging, trivial, bureaucratic interference by the Ministry in the work of the board. Days, weeks, months and, indeed, years passed whilst pathetic little plans for pathetic little matters were shuffled about between the Ministry and the board. An entire year passed.
Another regional board member who is present for this debate will not contradict me when I say that an entire year passed because of a dispute and argument about whether the boiler house of this £2 million project should be a few feet larger or smaller. The whole progress of the project was in jeopardy throughout that time. Ultimately, there was a Ministerial decision, to which, of course, the regional hospital board had to bow. I mention the example of this hospital only because it is, I fear, typical of hospital building in many other parts of the country.
I sum up by quoting from the objective report of the board, but not in any way designed to prove the point which I am now making. The report begins by saying that
The preliminary plans for this hospital provided for a 500 bedded hospital, with full ancillary services, and it was on this basis that discussions took place with the Ministry of Health in 1954.
It ends:
The Ministry's authority to go to tender on the main project was received early in July, 1958.
As I say, the hospital is in process of erection and as a result of my right hon. and learned Friend's intervention work is certainly progressing faster.
By way of comparison, I might mention that a friend of mine who is staying with me this week is an architect from the United States. He is charged with the responsibility of building in Berlin a hospital over double the size of the hospital to which I have referred. A year ago, all that existed was the willingness of the German and American authorities to build the hospital, and the land. A year ago, my friend was asked to draw up from scratch the plans for this large hospital. It will be in complete commission within three years of my friend being asked to draw up the first preliminary plans. If that can be done in Germany, why cannot it be done in this country?
I do not wish to be destructive, because, obviously, there is real difficulty. Ultimately, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister is responsible to this House for the expenditure of money. Equally obviously, Parliament intended that the hospital authorities should have a wide measure of freedom. If we establish regional hospital boards composed of distinguished men, we should be prepared to leave them a wide measure of freedom. I would prefer that, the Ministry having decided that a certain sum of money can be spent on a hospital, the regional hospital board should be left completely free, even for the building of hospitals of substantial size within the Ministry's allocation.
When in difficulties, it is good advice, at least for hon. Members on this side, to turn to John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill, who always gives practical advice, writes as follows:
I believe that the practical principle in which safety resides; the ideal to be kept in view; the standard by which to test all arrangements intended for overcoming the difficulty; may be conveyed by these words—the greatest dissemination of power consistent with efficiency; but the greatest possible centralisation of information and diffusion of it from the centre.
Therein lies the answer to many of the problems which we face within the hospital service—the dissemination of power consistent with efficiency and the centralisation of information from the centre.
First, let me say a word about dissemination of power. I should like to see far greater autonomy given all the way down the line. Starting with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, he in his Ministry should be given far greater autonomy or discretion by the Treasury. The tight Treasury control over his Department might achieve parsimony. It mast certainly does not achieve the best use of the resources which the Treasury places at its disposal.
Not only would I like to see my right hon. and learned Friend given greater power, but I should certainly like to see the regional boards given far greater autonomy in the management of their own affairs. To go one stage further, I should like to see the hospital management committees given far greater auto-

nomy in the management of their own affairs.
Now a word about centralisation of information. If we are to leave greater control in the hands of the regional boards we shall, no doubt, get much greater individuality in the designs of our hospitals, and a very good thing, too; but, equally, if we are to achieve a large hospital building programme we must at the same time be prepared to accept some basic designs common to all the hospitals, on the lines, I think, of the extraordinarily successful standardisation in the school-building programme under the Ministry of Education. I am not just talking about the acceptance of a universal module for windows, doors, minor objects like that. I am talking about basic design on a far larger scale.
My right hon. and learned Friend has within his Department—I know that this is a matter to which he is giving his personal attention—a hospital design unit. He has recently appointed, very wisely, as we both come from Hertfordshire, a Hertford man to take control of this hospital design unit. But this hospital design unit was established in 1954, and so far it has produced only one publication. I hope that the appointment of a Hertford man will result in an acceleration of its work. I should like to see the day approaching—indeed, I rather regret it is not approaching very quickly—when any regional board building a hospital could turn to the Ministry and have ready made designs for outpatients departments and so on, completely prepared designs for a ward or for an operating theatre, so that all the intricate planning of those details would be readily available without a moment's hesitation. I think this hospital design unit could serve a most useful purpose in the dissemination of information all over the country.
There is one other suggestion that I should like to make to my right hon. and learned Friend, and this, again, is concerned with the dissemination of information. Has my right hon. and learned Friend given thought to the possibility, in order to improve the understanding between the Ministry and the hospital authorities, of exchanging staff between the hospital authorities and the Ministry, somewhat on the lines of the Colonial Office when it exchanges staff between


the Colonial Office itself and the administrative officers in the field? This would seem to me to be advantageous to the regional boards themselves. It would, for instance, raise the ceiling of promotion. I have a feeling that the ceiling of promotion is at the moment, if we are to attract the very best people into our regional boards, a trifle too low and that salaries are not high enough.

Mr. Richard Marsh: This is a very interesting suggestion. There is only one major problem about it as far as I can see. Hospital staff and administrative staff, and so on, have different employers from Ministry employees. One group is of civil servants and the other consists of regional board employees. I do not know whether the noble Lord has got an answer to that?

Lord Balniel: I am aware of this, and I realise that it would bring into the Civil Service a considerable body of people who are not there at the moment. I realise that, but I am by no means convinced that it is not a very good thing. What it would do, for instance, would be to bring into the Ministry persons with actual experience of hospital operative work which at the moment is totally lacking in the Ministry of Health, so far as I can make out.
This Ministry is rather different from most Ministries. It is not like the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and it is not like the Ministry of Education. This Ministry is directly running one of the largest organisations in the country, an organisation comparable in scale with British Railways or comparable in scale with new towns. I believe I am right in saying that in total the National Health Service is the third largest organisation in the country. It is now over twenty years since a young assistant principal was seconded for a two-year term to a county council office. I merely put forward the suggestion, in order to increase the understanding between the Ministry and the regional boards, that an interchange of staff should at least be thought about even if it does involve a substantial constitutional change.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I have listened with considerable interest and enjoyment to the speech

of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). I felt that he developed a most thoughtful attack, after his preliminary opening remarks in defence. I had a good deal of sympathy with him in his defence, because what he was saying, in effect, was that it was so difficult to get buildings and organisation going after the war. We had had six years of war and it took some time to deal with other priorities before dealing with hospital building. I felt that he ought, perhaps, to have been on this side of the House at that stage, because we have so often tried, in other connections, to make the same case.
After his defence the hon. Member followed with a number of most useful points, and I hope that they will have some effect on the Ministry. I think that in this debate we find ourselves, as we sometimes do in this House, lining up together on the back benches in order to try to push the Front Benches into doing something better or more efficiently than before. One of the essential points of the noble Lord's speech was this everlasting division between central control and the need for responsibility to Parliament, on the one hand, and, on the other, the need, at the same time, to release initiative at other levels. I shall read the noble Lord's speech in HANSARD tomorrow and consider further some of the constructive suggestions he put forward in that respect.
In a whole series of national organisations we have this difficulty of how to get central administration clearly defined and central policy laid down and, at the same time, not clutter it up with such details as the size of a boiler in a local hospitial. I felt that when the noble Lord talked about the bureaucratic interference by the Ministry he was attacking more violently, perhaps, than my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill). I do not propose to go as far as that. I recognise the noble Lord's difficulties in the situation in which he apparently found himself in relation to the delays in building Welwyn Garden City Hospital.
Before I leave the noble Lord's comments, however, I would say that a matter which would bear looking at far more thoroughly is that of the department within the Ministry, which would


make available blue prints and information about building casualty departments, and other distinct parts of hospitals, and the noble Lord's point that there should be a mine of information readily available for hospital boards in deciding their programmes. Here the Ministry of Education has something good to offer in the way in which, in the post-war years, a tremendous building programme has gone on and in the way that it achieved economy by making this centralised information available for the building of schools. It cut down wasteful building, it cut down waste of space, and made a good job of it.
On the question of responsibility to Parliament, I am deeply concerned at the way in which the present Government have minimised discussion in this House of the National Health Service and, ipso facto, of the hospital service. We have two and a half hours allocation in the whole of this Session to discuss a part of the National Health Service. We are not even debating the whole of the Service. We are debating one-third of it, one section out of three.
I notice from Sir Harry Pilkington's Report, the one we shall not discuss till after the next one is out, that he has in it 124 paragraphs on the question of the hospitals. Yet the House is not to have an opportunity of discussing this matter because negotiations are already going on between the Minister and the profession as to what is to happen about hospital staff. My complaint is that we are removing from the House of Commons—not the Government—the right to participate in discussion of health matters.
A most formidable indictment was made was by Sir George Schuster, who is hardly likely to support this side of the House, in his essay which was published by the Acton Society Trust under the title, "Creative Leadership in a State Service." As a chairman of a regional hospital board himself he is entitled to claim some knowledge of the subject. He made three main charges. He said that there was a lack of creative leadership in the National Health Service for three reasons.
The first was that the Minister had been down-graded so that he did not sit in the Cabinet and this had affected the quality of the administrators who

were willing to enter the Ministry. The second charge was that the senior civil servants in the Ministry have no practical experience of the hospital services. The third, which was the point to which the noble Lord the Member for Hertford was primarily addressing himself, was the entire lack of central intelligence or planning activity.
On the first point, I have tried to do my small part. I have put only one Question ever to the Prime Minister in this Parliament, and that was to ask that the Minister of Health should be given a seat in the Cabinet. I am sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not accede to my request. I am attacking the Government more than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health. I realise that he is only one of a team and the fact that he is small fry is not his fault. It is the fault of the Government in not making him big fry.
Creative planning, without a great deal of extra expenditure, could secure tremendous advantages in the hospital service. Practical steps must be taken to secure greater integration of general practitioners and the local health authorities with hospitals. I wonder whether the Minister can find time to examine the outstanding results which have been achieved by making pathological, X-ray and sterile syringe services available to general practitioners in the vicinity of Chadwell Heath, Essex, Hospital. The services are used in about a dozen practices and since their inception the number of references to out-patient departments by these doctors have been cut down by 50 per cent. The reduction differs from specialty to specialty, but in connection with skin diseases attendance at out-patient departments has entirely disappeared because general practitioners are now able to secure sufficient information with the services at their disposal to give treatment.
What a relief it would be if we were able to cut by 50 per cent. the number of people who queue at out-patient departments. This could be achieved if we used the skill of the general practitioners by giving them the tools with which they could do the job. I should add, however, that at the Nelson Hospital, Merton, a similar scheme which was started with a great flourish


had to be stopped because there was insufficient staff there. Radiographers were not available and the scheme had to be brought to an end. It is up to the Minister to clear up difficulties that emerge from a shortage of staff.
The appalling frustration and time-wasting in out-patient departments should be entirely unnecessary. By the employment of a little imagination and the use of the good offices of the Council for Industrial Design a good deal could be done to minimise the present discomforts and anxieties. I have recently been a patient at three out-patient departments. One was at the Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital. There were the usual forms for rows of waiting patients to sit on and, finally, no more than a cubby hole where four patients sat on a wooden bench and waited to go inside to see the consultant whilst two others waited without seats.
The other hospitals were the National Hospital. Queen's Square and the Maida Vale Hospital, where there were marvellous arrangements and fine organisation and administration. There were comfortable chairs, little tables and a small cafeteria in the corner of the room. Patients were made to feel that they were not a lot of sheep being pushed past hurdles, but human beings suffering from illness and being treated with sympathy and understanding. If this can be done in two hospitals, why cannot it be done elsewhere?
What prevents it? I cannot believe that it is shortage of cash. Fresh colours and a few pictures on the wall and a better way of handling people are not an expensive undertaking. Outpatient departments are now the only survival from pre-war days when employment exchanges treated the unemployed man as if he were a criminal. We still have not got out of that attitude of mind in the matter of treating people in the out-patient departments of some of our hospitals.
Many of our buildings are Victorian and antiquated. We on this side of the House welcomed the Minister's statement on 11th July that in the Treasury's desire to out public expenditure his plans would not be cut. A sum of £31½r million will be spent next year, an increase of 20 per cent., but the Minister will be under terrific pressure from other

Departments to cut his programme. I implore him to resist that pressure.
This sum is not enough, but we want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to retain all he can. He has said that there are 180 schemes, that eight new hospitals have been partly completed, nine started and 17 planned, but for a population of 52 million this is still inadequate. We have not had any national survey made of the changes not only in the last ten years, but in the last five years in the whole pattern of the treatment of illness. The Ministry should be ahead of developments and should know its requirements to plan effectively the health services and the hospitals it needs.
The irrefutable argument which the right hon. and learned Gentleman can employ is the fact that these services have been allowed to run down disastrously and starved of development. It is only now that the Minister is getting into his stride. He is in the position of the householder who does not do repairs and is then caught with a heavy bill because things have got out of hand and, in the meantime, the cost of labour and materials has risen. I appeal to the Minister not to accept any pegging back of expenditure, but to secure, if possible, even more than £31½ million.
Not only are some of the buildings archaic, but the structure of hospital staffing is absolutely archaic and antiquated. The Government have failed entirely to modernise it. Two grades stick out like a sore thumb. The S.H.M.O.s were to be a temporary expedient and they have become so permanent that their numbers have increased by 30 per cent. since the inception of this grade. Now 3,000 of them feel very disgruntled because many of them do full consultant work without consultant pay. The S.H.M.O. receives £34,000 less than the consultant in his working life, and on top of that the consultant receives domiliciary fees, merit awards and also private fees. No wonder there is dissatisfaction and unrest.
Then there is the poor time-expired registrar. We have discussed his plight time and time again. The Minister has said that there were 120 of these who were fully qualified and were doing major consultant work, but who had


no idea of their future and no certainty of obtaining a consultant post. Some of them held Hunterian professionships and many had higher degrees by thesis. When will the Minister do something for these forgotten men? No doubt he will say that we are waiting for the Platt Committee to report. We have already waited two years. If we have to wait very much longer the time-expired registrars will have expired themselves.
When he is looking at the whole structure I ask the Minister to regard this as a matter of urgency. When railwaymen were waiting for the Guillebaud Committee's Report the Government speeded up the Committee. The Minister might take a leaf out of that book and put a squib behind the Platt Committee. A committee, incidentally, which, with one exception, is drawn entirely from the teaching hospitals. This brings me to the point that it is time that the Minister tackled the problem of the huge chasm that exists between the highly developed teaching hospitals and the broad mass of hospitals under regional boards which are taking the bulk of medical work on their shoulders. Judged by the work that they do, taking on all corners, dealing with a larger number of patients in proportion to staff than the teaching hospitals, they have more than earned a status on a par with teaching 'hospitals. Yet the present system not only denies this, but gives the teaching hospitals the opportunity to set the pattern for the whole hospital service. The regional hospitals are in the majority, but the top consultants from teaching hospitals are the people who more or less impose their will over the whole of the Service.
I recognise that in the last two years things have been moving in the hospital service faster than they have moved in the previous ton. But there is so much to be done and so little time for those of us who are interested in this subject to contribute to the discussion that is given here to get things done. We have within the hospital service outstanding examples of what can be done. All we are asking is for the Government to raise the level of the poorer parts of the service to the heights reached by some other parts. Because the Government give little priority to these things

and appear complacent and not seized of the importance of making vital reforms, we must exert our utmost pressure in this debate and whenever the chance is afforded to us.

8.11 p.m.

Brigadier Sir Otho Prior-Palmer: I hope that the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his very interesting and reasoned speech. Although we may blame the 'present Government and the present Minister, it, was the original conception that was wrong. Whatever Government were in power today would have to face up to this problem. The whole Service wants complete reorganisation in the light of experience That is part of but not by any means the whole of the trouble.
A point made by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) worries me a little. I am scared stiff, or, to use a more Parliamentary word, frightened, by all these hospitals going exactly the same way. That is one of the ways in which we have gone wrong. There is a growing need for other types of hospitals as well as the orthodox. Cottage-type hospitals are needed to deal with nursing cases, the aged and those in need of medical care and attention. There ought to be more of these hospitals.
I am sure that all of us think well of this great service of ours. I am also sure that it is top-heavy, that there are far too many cogs in the machine, and that too many people have to be consulted before anything is done. An east wind, as it were, should blow through this Service so that something can be done.
There is the question of the hours of waiting which outpatients have to undergo. I am rather an accident-prone person and when I have had to wait I have said to myself, "Heavens above, I can see about six ways of preventing this waiting." There are people who like it. They regard it as a nice little holiday at their employer's expense, but most people have work to do and are longing to get out and get on with their work. The moment one is in hospital one feels that there is no sense of time. The doctors and nurses seem to feel that because a man is ill he need not do any


more work until he has been put right. Surely something can be done about that.
Then there is the question of waiting for a bed, not for months but literally for years. I can do no better than quote the actual case of my own constituency. In Worthing, as I have said before in connection with housing, we have twice the national average of old people, most of whom need medical care and attention. These are people mainly of very slender means, who have suffered from the post-war inflation and the new revolution, and who are living either on pensions or on a minute fixed income of £150 or £200 a year. I could quote hundreds of such cases. The Worthing Hospital Management Committee, although I say it, is one of the most enlightened in the country. We all know that Worthing Hospital was the very first hospital to introduce daily visits for children. It is a progressive and enlightened hospital, and it has been known for a very long time that the beds and accommodation of this hospital—and of others close by—are totally inadequate for the demands made upon them.
Discussions were started concerning this hospital in February, 1956, pointing out the urgent need for more beds and other improvements such as more operating theatres and even cooking facilities. Up to March, 1957, one year and one month later, nothing had been done. Then a meeting was called in March of this year—four years later—but no finalised plan for any part of the scheme has yet been approved, despite many visits and much correspondence.
It was in the middle of all this—it gets almost more incredible as I go on—that the Ministry decided that it could not look at the Worthing scheme in isolation from other schemes for hospitals in the neighbourhood. That is perfectly all right—why should they? But does it take two years to come to that decision before anything is done? Lt took two years to make a little decision like that. I can only say to those who are responsible that I am very glad for their sakes that they were never in my brigade when I commanded one.
That is not the end to this fantastic story. A year and a half later the management committee was informed that

another meeting would be held to discuss the matter on the basis that it must be part and parcel of the whole scheme. The meeting was held, but the management committee was never informed and not invited and did not know until afterwards that the meeting had been held.
On another occasion, plans were submitted by the Southlands Hospital for improvements under the new scheme whereby all hospitals must be considered. The first thing that the management committee knew about a three-phased scheme which had been passed for this hospital was when it read it in a report in the Press.
I cannot conclude without a word about the Worthing Council of Social Service, which has been doing, and is doing, a magnificent job for these pathetic older people in my constituency, relieving their suffering in this respect and in respect of accommodation. The members of this council know the tragic end of the story through their visits and contacts.
In 1957, they sent a memorandum to the Minister setting out the whole situation as they saw it, and a deputation attended on the Minister. They recommended that a rock-bottom minimum of 375 beds was necessary in Worthing to bring it up to the national average. Bearing in mind that we have double the national average of old people, they were being very modest in their demands,. One must realise that our accommodation must serve not just the borough of Worthing but towns such as Littlehampton.
This council can testify to the piteous character of some of the cases which are postponed from month to month. Last September—this is the latest figure that I can obtain—the waiting list numbered 112, 43 of which were A.1 cases. The delay is anything from eight months to a year for serious and urgent cases.
There are hundreds of cases which I could quote, but I will quote only three. There is an old, immobile, very deaf lady with miocarditis being looked after by her husband of 80 years of age. She cannot get out of bed, and her husband can hardly move either. There is an old man of 91 who is senile and ill being looked after by an elderly daughter who is completely worn out and finished by her ministrations. There is a totally


blind man of 79 being looked after by a crippled landlady. This is not to say that tremendous work is not done by the district nurses. They are absolutely splendid. But it is far more than they can possibly cope with.
At long last a scheme for 52 new beds for Swandean Hospital is being started. But that scheme was agreed—not just put forward—before 1956, before any of these proposals were put forward to the Ministry. So that is not anything very much to crow about. I learnt only today from the person with whom I have been in contact that other schemes have also been approved—for new bathroom accommodation, new sanitary annexes and new additions to the maternity hospital. Where is the list of priorities? It really is fantastic. It is beds that we need. I hope the Minister will look into this matter very seriously indeed.
I had a very courteous and charming letter from the Minister today. He knew that I would speak in the debate. He said, quite rightly, that building takes time. Of course it does. But it takes a great deal longer if it is four years before one lays the first brick. It is also said that the board is fully aware of the situation. It would be deaf or blind if it were not, because it has been continuously made aware of the situation.
In my Budget speech I said that there are certain Ministers—this goes for both sides of the House—who sit on Mount Olympus sipping the nectar and are isolated and insulated from those living in the valleys by a cloud of civil servants. I ask the Minister to descend from that height and look into this matter. He should institute a searching inquiry into this case. I do not believe we shall ever get rid of the disease which affects bureaucracy until a large number of heads have rolled.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) will not mind if I do not follow the remarks that he has made. There is really nothing in what he said that we could debate because I so very greatly share his views and appreciate his remarks, particularly as he represents Worthing, in which I understand I was nearly born, it being my mother's home town, and also because his eulogy of the Worthing

hospital service is well deserved. One of the most prominent representatives of the Worthing Hospital Board is a person whom the hon. and gallant Member will know as well as I do—Mr. Barber, who is, I know, typical of many others who have helped most remarkably to provide the hospital needs of Worthing in the past years.
I mention that because it links up with an observation of a general nature that I wish to make, that we are, obviously, all proud today of our National Health Service, even though there are defects which must be remedied. This view is now shared by both sides of the House. I do not seek to be contentious when I say that that view was not always held so enthusiastically as it apparently is now. Perhaps the elderly people in the Worthing constituency may spare a thought not only in appreciation of their Member of Parliament for speaking so impressively about their hospital service but also in appreciation of the initiation of the schemes from which they are glad to benefit at present.
In my visits to America I have once or twice been assailed by American critics about what they call our "socialised medicine". I well remember on one occasion being able to quote an hon. Member opposite who was lecturing in America while I was there. He assured his American audiences that all parties in this country now upheld our National Health Service. I am afraid that some of my American listeners, when they heard me quote that, muttered under their breath "What a liar that Limey is!" Be that as it may, there are a large number of Americans who visit this country, some of whom have stayed in my house, who now appreciate—perhaps they did so grudgingly at first—that here we have an example to the whole world of what may be done by organising social services to meet social needs. Whether we call that Socialism or by some other name I do not mind, because, whatever it is, it establishes a principle in which this side of the House always wholeheartedly concurs.
Perhaps I might also bear testimony here to the very fine work which is being done voluntarily by thousands of men and women of all parties and of


varying types in our regional hospital boards and committees. I say that not merely because my wife is active in one of them but because I know that here again is an example of how, given the opportunity and the incentive, a spirit of public service, not for gain but simply for the sheer love of devoting oneself to public life, is evoked and can be implemented in a very splendid fashion. There are serious defects, however, and the criticisms from both sides of the House of the Minister are directed not only at him but at the whole institution which he represents in the House.
I could speak of many aspects of the hospital service, but I am conscious of the lack of time and I will confine myself to three brief remarks. If it is not entirely irrelevant, I should like to refer to the dental service, about which we have already heard something. I asked the Minister a Question the other day and was informed that, taking the country as a whole, the number of persons per dentist in the general dental service varies from 3,100 in London and the South-East to 5,900 in the Midlands and the north Midlands, and in my county of Essex the figure is 4,750 and in the Borough of Leyton it is 4,200.
I mention that because it is some measure of the growing requirement to secure more dentists, particularly for the children. I do not think that the later cumulative effect of bad teeth among children is sufficiently appreciated. The neglect of children's teeth affects later their mental as well as their physical health. Children should receive regular and frequent dental service. It is false economy not to do that now because we shall have to pay in other ways later on when the effect of the neglect is registered in the mental or physical illness of the child.
I ask the Minister again whether he can give some idea of the need for dentists for the next five years. In a Question to him on 18th July I asked specifically
… what are the prospects for the next five years of a substantial increase in the training of dentists?
To my dismay the right hon. and learned Gentleman replied:
I regret that no estimate of shortages in particular areas is available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 1.]

That is a woeful admission. Surely by now the Minister should have stimulated his staff to secure this information. I do not join in the criticisms of bureaucracy so lightly flung out by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing. Surely the Minister should himself have stimulated his bureaucracy to making inquiries about what is the extent of the need. How are we to meet it if we do not know what is the need? In my view, this is a very grave defect on the part of the Minister and I hope that we may be given some more encouraging reply than that which I received on 18th July. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said on that occasion:
Plans for the expansion of dental training facilities are well under way.
Cannot he elaborate a little? Cannot he give some information about haw he proposes to grapple with one of the most dominant needs of the present time? I ask him again to go out of his way a little in order to give us more information and encouragement.
The second point to which I wish briefly to refer in the short time which I am allowing myself to speak relates to the supply of nurses. I am glad that the nursing situation is not quite so serious as it was although it is still serious. There are hospital beds in various parts of the country which cannot be used because of a shortage of nursing staff. I do not know what we should have done without the services of girls from overseas, including those from various Colonies or ex-Colonies. I should like to register our gratitude to them for coming to our aid and I trust that they will also be of service to their own countries when they return.
Something should be done to secure a greater number of nurses and I would like to know what the Minister proposes to do to meet this need 100 per cent.? What is he doing to persuade the London teaching hospitals, which are relatively overstaffed, to distribute some of their nursing staff to other hospitals; not only to teaching hospitals but other hospitals which give as great a nursing and hospital service? What is the Minister doing to encourage regional boards and committees to co-ordinate its plans to remedy a situation in which one hospital may be fairly well staffed and another not far away grossly understaffed? What


is he doing to encourage plans for distributing nurses and student nurses more fairly among the hospitals? I plead with the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter.
I join with other hon. Members in urging that much greater efforts should be made not only to renovate, repair, restore and decorate hospital buildings but, where possible, to scrap them and replace them with better buildings. In my own locality there are three hospitals. One is the Langthorne, where the nurses and staff are doing everything possible. The hospital committee to its credit has certainly succeeded in improving the building, but from the outside at any rate it still remains extraordinarily like a bastille of the past. I expect that this is only one of a number of similar hospitals throughout the country, and, in addition to the other request I have made of the Minister, I ask him to give particular attention to these hospitals which ought to have been scrapped long ago. Some of them, as in the case of the hospital I mentioned, were formerly workhouses and some semblance of that remains, although in saying that I do not wish to be misunderstood, particularly by my constituents. Those concerned, both committee and staff, have done their best in a difficult job.
I trust that the Minister will pay attention to the three points which I have raised, and, in particular, that he will give more information regarding dental training that he provided for me on 18th July.

8.35 p.m.

Mrs. Eveline Hill: It is obvious that on both sides of the House there is real anxiety that we should increase the efficiency of the National Health Service. I do not share the pessimism of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), because, when all is said and done, many of us have cause to be very grateful to the Service. We do the Service itself a dis-service if we over-emphasise certain points. It cannot be a 100 per cent. Service, even after this length of time. There has been an enormous change from our original conception of the Health Service, and it takes time to get everything right. There are faults, but many people have benefited

considerably from services given all over the country.
That is not to say that those of us who take active part in running hospitals are not anxious that there should be improvements in the administrative set-up of the Service. Far too much time is wasted between management committee and regional board, and regional board and central administration. That is one of the things to which I hope the Minister will pay attention, because it is largely in that way that some economy can be made, even if it is only an economy in the time of officials.
From my own knowledge of hospitals, I know how one can wait for nearly six years for building schemes finally to be approved. There is too much to-ing and fro-ing, wasting an enormous amount of time of management committee and regional board officials, as well as the time of officials of the Ministry, every time there is a difference of opinion. All those things cost money and I hope that the Minister will consider how these arrangements work.
It is obvious that the Service costs a good deal more money than was envisaged when it was inaugurated. There is a far greater population to serve and we are all anxious that the Minister should not be denied funds to make the hospital service in particular and the Health Service generally absolutely first-class. Over the last ten years, £600,000 has been spent on a hospital in which I am interested in modernisation and improvements, but that is not a great deal for a hospital with 1,000 patients and a staff of 1,000, especially when one thinks in terms of keeping the hospital in good repair and adding improvements, new departments and generally keeping up to modern standards.
I think that it is advisable for more power to be given to regional boards, the people on the spot, without their having to go to the Ministry so often about small details. Having to go to the Ministry merely when one wants a ward to be a little smaller, or a passage a little narrower, is often irritating. If the regional board were given so much money, it could plan its expenditure for its area. I cannot think that the Minister can be aware of the plans for all areas. The amount of paperwork involved makes that impossible.
What worries many hon. Members is the length of the waiting lists of consultants. There are long waiting lists in several respects, for instance, of women waiting for gynaecological operations, women living at only half pressure because they cannot do any better, and who are probably something of a nuisance to their families because they are somewhat irritable through feeling ill. There are also waiting lists for orthopaedic cases, many illnesses with which we can now deal but with which we could not deal a few years ago, varicose veins, for example. All those lists are tremendously long and the determining factor in their length is often the amount of operating space available.
The recruitment of staff has been mentioned. We have recruited many staff and I am not prepared to agree that the Service is worse under a Conservative Administration than it was before. Nevertheless, staffing is important. Hospital staffs now have much longer holidays, and, therefore, we need more and more staff, and even more money with which to pay these extra staff. Therefore, it is a tremendous problem with which the Minister has to contend and which he needs to give a great deal of attention. Let him set an example from the top, and say to the regional boards and to the management committees, "That is your job. Let us see you work more efficiently."
We are spending a lot of money and we are doing a lot of good, but the Health Service is linked up with other services, which point was touched upon by an hon. Member opposite, in relation to beds for those elderly people who are blocking our acute beds now. There is quite a lot of that up and down the country, and I wish that there were more homes to which we could transfer the acute patients so that we could make very much better use of the beds available for acute cases. If the Minister could do something on those lines, it would materially help the Service and it would also help to get rid of some of these very long waiting lists and to get into hospital those people whom we are anxious should get there—the elderly people who are ill in their one little room or little flat, and who really need our help very materially.
If the Minister, by all his efforts and by means of the money he is spending, can help in speeding up the production of new hospitals and new departments, and removing some of these obstructions, I am certain that he will earn the undying support of all those people who are now working in the Health Service, to which they give so very much of their time.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I should like to support the plea which other hon. Members have made for less interference from Whitehall in regard to building, which is quite appalling. I have heard many cases in which local people on the regional hospital boards and management committees have been frustrated, as other hon. Members have said, by the delay which takes place. With all the earnestness at my command, I appeal to the Minister to do something to put an end to this frustration among local people who are doing a fine job of work on these regional boards and management committees.
I should like to see a service in children's hospitals which, I think, is very essential. It is the provision of beds for mothers to be able to stay the night when their children, especially younger children, are taken to hospital after accidents. I had the very unfortunate experience of taking my three-and-a-half year old son to hospital after a serious accident, and finding that he was literally plucked from my arms and taken away through a door, while I was left to state my religion and other particulars to a secretary.
I am certain that it would assist children in recovering from the mental and psychological shock if they knew that one of their parents was allowed to stay in the hospital, and that it would have a very powerful effect on the recovery of younger children. I have had three similar experiences, one of the others being concerned with my sister-in-law and her small child and the other being one of my workmen whom I took to hospital.
I understand that at the new hospital at Worthing, about which the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) spoke, something has been done about this, and that visiting is permitted during the day every day. I am


sure that this is a service which should be instituted where possible, and it should be possible. It would give tremendous relief to mothers who have to take children, particularly those between two and eight years of age, to hospital. Could the Minister do something by issuing a circular—though I understand that this has already been done—to see what can be done towards providing this service? It would be of very great benefit indeed.
I do not think that the hospital service has deteriorated, but since the Health Service was introduced it has not developed. We are supposed to be in an affluent society, in which we are spending much money on inessentials, while the essential thing to do is to develop our hospitals and health services—a development which has not taken place. I have friends in the medical profession and in the hospital service who tell me how frustrating it is, in our present affluent society, to see so much money being spent on inessentials while the hospital service is starved. I therefore appeal to the Minister to go ahead and develop these services so that our Health Service, which was once said to be the envy of some other countries, might become the envy of the whole world.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: When I sit down I have little doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will rise to tell us about the expansion of the hospital capital programme and the steadily increasing expenditure on hospitals which have taken place during his year of office. He may even try to compare the expenditure today with the record of the Labour Government. I say "may" because I hope that he will not. I hope that he agrees with me that this dead horse was flogged by his right hon. Friends to the point of disintegration many years ago. In case he does, I want to put this matter into perspective and, in so doing, I think, put into persepotive also the opening remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Baliniel). These are the only remarks to which I shall take any exception from his admirable and hard-hitting speech.
The Guillebaud Committee found that the cost of the National Health Service, when expressed as a percentage of the total national wealth or the gross national product, had been falling year by year up to the time when it reported at the time of 1956. I am glad to say that that fall has been substantially arrested. The trend has flattened out and there has been a very slight reverse in the last year or two, but still, expressed as a percentage of the gross national product, the cost of the National Health Service today is substantially below that of 1950.
I agree that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has done a little better in capital expenditure. He can point to the fact that in the current year he hopes to exceed an expenditure of £30 million, a sum which the Guillebaud Committee recommended should be spent annually over seven years in order to modernise the hospitals. But, of course, that Report was four years ago, and £30 million then would be the equivalent of about £34 million today; and in real terms the figure has not yet reached the level which the Guillebaud Committee set five years ago. I should, however, like to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on having stood firm against the pressure from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to cut the programme as already announced, and I hope that we shall find that he will be able to spend sufficient money in the course of the current financial year.
Our charge is not one which is mainly directed to matters of finance. My right hon. Friends and hon. Members on both side of the House have called attention to a number of shortcomings in the hospital service which could be put right without the expenditure of a single £1. I should like to refer to the Report of the Committee on Estimates which was published three years ago but which has never been debated in the House. It is a Report on the running costs of hospitals, and it contains some fairly sharp criticisms of the Department and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor, which, as far as I know, have never been met. I hope to show that these criticisms are still valid and have not been answered.
In its Report the Select Committee on Estimates enumerated certain duties


of the Ministry as it saw them, and it went on to say:
These obligations can only be met satisfactorily if the Ministry act with vigour and foresight. Your Committee are not satisfied that they have always done so. They were, in particular, disappointed to find that few conclusions had been reached by the Ministry on some of the cardinal problems affecting the Service.
I hope that the Minister agrees that these are serious criticisms when one considers the normal meiosis which is employed by the Select Committee on Estimates. I was a member of the subcommittee which examined this Estimate, and what we complained about at the time was the lack of leadership. The short debate we have been able to have this evening has emphasised this time and again in speeches from both sides. I have seldom heard such sharp criticism of a Minister by hon. Members on the Government back benches.
We get from the Ministry plenty of detailed guidance. Some of it is good. Some of it is less good and might almost be termed unnecessary interference. Circulars fall like the leaves in Vallombrosa. There seem to be little or no forward thinking, no policy making, and marked indecisiveness where decision is needed.
The noble Lord the Member for Hertford went in some detail into the rather melancholy story of the planning of the now hospital at Welwyn. I assure the House from my own experience that what he said was absolutely sound. It illustrates as well as any illustration I could give—I could easily give others—the slow-moving machine we have in the hospital service when it comes to developments, and particularly new construction. The machine moves slowly, mainly because of delays at Ministry level in getting approvals and the fiddling interferences on points of detail that the noble Lord mentioned.
There are many other things in which I think there has been a lack of leadership from the Ministry. The Royal Commission on Mental Health and the Mental Health Act both envisage a fairly rapid development of psychiatric units in general hospitals. This is a development which we all find extremely desirable, and indeed urgent, or at any rate nearly all of us do. Among doctors in general hospitals there is undoubtedly a

very marked prejudice against psychiatry. [An HON. MEMBER: "There was."] There still is. It is not quite as intense as it was a few years ago, but it is not improving fast enough. There will be a prejudice against the setting up of these units. We shall not get them unless a good deal of pressure is exercised on hospitals by regional boards, and, above all, by the Minister himself, in order to overcome these prejudices. There is little sign so far that any such initiative has been forthcoming.
The Minister tends to regard himself as a reconciler of interests in this service. In this rôle I and some of my hon. Friends have found that he shows himself excessively tender towards the medical interest. This does not prevent him from being criticised by the doctors at their annual conference, as my right hon. Friend pointed out.
I want to be fair about this. I agree that a Ministry which was having a perpetual running battle with the medical profession probably would not result in a particularly efficient hospital service, but where there is a conflict between the interests of the patients and the interests of the doctors it is the duty of the Minister to see that the interests of the patients prevail. This is not by any means always done.
I want to give a few examples. There is the example which my right hon. Friend mentioned, namely, the Cranbrook Committee's Report. The Minister knows full well that the Cranbrook Committee is right in insisting on an obstetric list with definite qualifications, and a list which is kept regularly up to date. He could have insisted on the implementation of this recommendation, instead of which, because the British Medical Association, representing the doctors, objects for some misconceived notion of professional prestige, nothing has been done about this matter for fifteen months, during which time dozens of women have died unnecessarily in childbirth following treatment by doctors who are not properly skilled in obstetrics.
Another complaint frequently heard in the House is about the minority of part-time consultatnts who are not doing the work for which they are being paid. They are leaving to their registrars far too many of the duties that they themselves should undertake. Everyone in


the hospital service knows that this takes place. It is true that specific cases very seldom come to light, but the reason is quite simple. It is that the Ministry has come to be regarded as being automatically on the side of the consultant, right or wrong, and the people who know that these things go on and who are in a position to report them, are frankly afraid to do so because of possible consequences to themselves—and, indeed, of legal action.
This should not happen, but there are other common complaints—again, about the small minority of consultants. One is the way in which they persuade patients to undergo treatment privately in order to get some sort of priority for a bed in a hospital. Again, we do not often get specific details, but I have here a very interesting extract from the minutes of the consultants and specialists committee of the Manchester region. I will not mention the hospital concerned. The item is headed, "Consultant acting in an unethical manner," and reads:
The chairman gave details of a case where a consultant had accepted a patient privately on the understanding that to wait for the required medical attention in the normal manner would result in a long delay, and that the general practitioner involved had been fined by the Executive Council for his part in the case.
Several members expressed their views, but the chairman—
that is, the chairman of that committee:
said that little could be done because there was no comparable employing authority for consultants as there was for the general practitioner.
Apparently, the general practitioner can be disciplined by the executive council but the consultant—who is under contract, I should have thought, to the regional board—is allowed to get away with it. This is the sort of situation that brings the hospital service into disrepute in some quarters, and a Minister who was properly jealous for the reputation of the service would take some vigorous steps to see that it did not go on.
Even the comparatively small matters about which we hear—like that raised at Question Time the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) about the right of out-patients to know the doctor who is actually treating them—meet with

scant sympathy from the Minister. Who could really object to such an arrangement as that? Could it not be regarded just as part of the humanisation of our hospital service, which is perhaps the thing most sorely needed at the moment? One or two of my hon. Friends 'have spoken of this—in one case at least from personal experience. I ask the Minister to ponder the word "humanisation." It is important. There is room for a great deal more of it in the service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said, the old attitudes still linger on in far too many places.
It is because the Minister has displayed a lack of vigour, a lack of enterprise and a lack of initiative on so many of these points that we have decided on this occasion to register our displeasure by dividing the House. I hope that the Minister will agree that there have been a large number of constructive suggestions made to him in a very short time, and also some very severe criticisms, which, I hope, he will take to heart and do something about.

8.59 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): We have certainly had some very interesting contributions in what has necessarily been a short debate. First, perhaps I may say what pleasure it gave to me—and, I am sure, to other hon. Members—to (hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill). I think that it was her first speech since she returned to the House after her illness, and it was made with all the quality, understanding, sympathy and constructive good sense that we have so long associated with her.
I was also very pleased to hear a speech from the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), being the first time that I have had that pleasure, and he now being a constituency neighbour of mine. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) regretted the shortness of the time given to this debate, and the shortness of time afforded in this Session for debating these problems generally. I entirely agree with him. Nobody wishes more than I that this could have been a whole day's debate. I do not know why it is not a whole day debate.
Nobody knows betters than the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) that the conduct and choice of business in these Supply day debates at this time of the year is substantially in the hands of the Opposition, except for legislation. Last year and the year before we had a whole Supply day. But this year we have only half a day, presumably because the Opposition thought that they had only half as strong a case to make.

Mrs. Eirene White: We had half a day for the debate on the hospital service for Wales, a very important part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that the hon. Lady was not present when her hon. Friend spoke. He gave full credit for that, but nevertheless regretted—and I think we all agree with him—that this could not have been a full Supply day debate.
We have, nevertheless, had a number of very interesting and constructive suggestions. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) referred to a criticism—a harsh criticism, I believe he said. I did not find any very harsh criticism, except, of course, if one were so hypersensitive that one was not prepared to listen to anything except unqualified praise. He would be a very unwise and, I would think, unpromising Minister who took that view. Of course, suggestions and criticisms have been made. It would be remarkable if they had not. We at the Ministry of Health will certainly try to profit by any constructive suggestions.
My noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), who made a very constructive speech himself and one to which, I think, we all listened with great interest, said some kind thing about me, as I think the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North will find if he refreshes his memory from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate tomorrow. My noble Friend observed—and on this he was unquestionably on non-controversial ground—that the National Health Service is a very large-scale industry indeed.
This is the background to the sort of problems that we discuss. We have no fewer than 2,641 hospitals, the subject of our discussion today; we have over 7,000 consultants in those hospitals,

about 12,000 other doctors, 194,000 nurses and 12,000 midwives, to say nothing of about 233,000 other employees. We spend on the revenue account over £400 million a year on them, about four times the total of the whole annual budget that Mr. Gladstone was bringing in only 100 years ago.
Of course, this is a very large-scale enterprise and an enterprise which is inevitably labouring under certain inherited disadvantages, some of which have been referred to this evening. There are hospitals housed in old buildings, hospitals built when medical standards and knowledge were different, hospitals suffering under the technical limitations of an earlier age. Some are inconveniently sited. Of course, generally speaking, the whole pattern of our hospital building reflects a pattern of disease and of treatment which is not the pattern of today. But those are the physical factors implicit in the situation.
We are, of course, seeking to remedy these things by way of extension and modernisation of our existing hospitals and the building of new hospitals. On that I shall have a word or two to say in a few minutes. Meanwhile, I think it right that we should realise that a good deal of the work is necessarily done in difficult conditions, and we ought to have that in mind when we assess the quality of the work. I know that it adds to the admiration hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House feel for the quality and devotion of the service actually given in our hospitals, for which the country is and should be grateful.
At one point, my noble Friend compared the hospital service with British Railways. He did not elaborate that comparison, but I wish to make one point about it. There is a difference between the 2,641 hospitals and British Railways which is significant for our debate today. I have been for three years responsible at this Box for answering the questions of hon. Members on the day-to-day administration of each of those 2,641 hospitals. It follows, therefore, that the whole service is at all times under the close, keen and detailed scrutiny of the House of Commons. When the hon. Member for Willesden, West says that we have only this short debate—I agree with him in


regretting it—he will not, I am sure, forget that there is that continued scrutiny on a day-to-day basis, of which he, to his credit, takes full advantage and in which he plays a keenly constructive and critical past.
To give the best service to the nation that we can, we must do two things. We have to extend and modernise our hospitals and build new ones, so far as our resources allow, and we have also to make the best use of the facilities we have. The need for this, of course, is emphasised by the pressures on our service illustrated, for instance, by the waiting lists about which the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington and my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe spoke.
The right hon. Lady's figures for the waiting lists are correct. The figure in my last Annual Report was 476,000. This was greater than the figure in 1958, about the same as it was in 1954, and about 55,000 less than it was in 1950. On the face of it, that is not a trend to give us great satisfaction, and certainly it is one which we do not view with any complaceny. One should not exaggerate the precise significance of these figures, because they are not a reliable index of the position throughout the year. They are figures taken for one day in the year only and they do not in any case completely measure the demand for hospital beds, because urgent and emergency admissions are not included.
The waiting list figures emphasise one important aspect of the problem we have in the hospital service, and they impose two clear duties upon us which we ought to seek to discharge as best as we may, the first being to operate a fair system of admission while we have waiting lists, the second being to improve our methods and expand our accommodation so as to reduce the waiting lists in that way. Those are, I think, the two principles that we should try to follow.
There has been some criticism of the methods of dealing with waiting lists and admissions, although I think I am right in saying that that criticism has not been reflected in today's debate. I would emphasise that patients are admitted immediately upon an emergency or accident basis, and in other cases they

follow a medical assessment of the priority, normally—other things being equal—taking their place on the waiting list. But if we consider these waiting lists as illustrating the problems in the hospital service, we must also have regard to the other side of the picture, that is to say, the increased volume of work, within our present resources, which we are carrying out in the hospitals.
During last year, we achieved 4 million courses of in-patient treatment—an increase of 3 per cent. on the 1958 figure. This has involved a quicker treatment and turnover of patients. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing referred to the necessity to concentrate on the provision of new beds. That is part of the expansion of facilities on which we are engaged, but it is part only, because there are many things in a hospital besides beds, and we find that many of the improvements that we make in modernising hospitals is not reflected in a proportionate net increase in the number of beds; indeed, as we upgrade wards, and give greater space, we do not achieve a greater number of beds, although we achieve better working conditions and, thereby, better treatment and an increased turnover.
We are also trying to ease the problem by the better use of our out-patient resources and the expansion of those facilities. Here we are making solid and sustained progress. In the last four years, we have increased the number of attendances at out-patient clinics by over 4 million—from 37 million to 41,250,000. These figures not only show an encouraging trend in the method of treatment but reflect the shift of emphasis which we are trying to bring about from institutional care to care within the community, whenever possible. This has important social and economic advantages, both for the individual and for the community. It helps the individual, because it means less separation from his family and less absence from work, and it helps the community, because it eases the heavy pressures on our in-patient accommodation, and it saves both time and money.
In this context I want to say a word on the subject of mental health in relation to out-patient clinics and


generally—a subject referred to by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North. In answer, I would say that the number of out-patient attendances has increased from 466,000 ten years ago to no less than 1,158,000, which is the latest figure I have, although even that is for a year or so ago. We are pressing forward with the development of the psychiatric out-patient clinics, to which the hon. Member referred.

Mr. K. Robinson: I was referring to psychiatric units, that is, in-patient units in general hospitals, about which very little has been done.

Mr. Walker-Smith: We have not got so far with that yet. The hon. Member knows that this is a new concept, flowing from the Mental Health Act. It did not take us long to get the Act on the Statute Book after the Royal Commission. At one stage the hon. Member seemed to be suggesting that I was not interested in the problems of mental health. This was the one charge I never expected to hear levelled against myself, having regard to the events of the last three years. We have developed nearly 400 of the psychiatric out-patient clinics at general hospitals, which are doing a good job of work, and there are about seventy day hospitals.
I should like to refer briefly to a question raised by the right hon. Lady about maternal deaths and, in particular, to the Report. I am sorry that it is not available in full for the House for this debate. The galley proofs were given in advance of publication to the British Medical Journal because, as the right hon. Lady will know, there are many distinguished gynæcological and obstetrical experts in London for the opening of the new building of the Royal College and it was desired that some comment should be available for them.
The British Medical Journal has said, and rightly so, that there were cases where elementary precautions were not taken and serious mistakes were made. That is most regrettable, but it is not true that all the avoidable factors were of this kind. Indeed, one of the commonest avoidable factors was failure by the patient or her family to take the advice given or even to seek professional care at all.
We also have to have in mind the scope of this Report. It deals with the cases of 861 maternal deaths directly due to childbirth in a period when there were 1,112 such deaths but more than 2 million births. Those are the sort of proportions with which we are concerned. The right hon. Lady said that it showed a deterioration under Conservative Government. In fact, the Report shows a marked decrease in the numbers of maternal deaths, a decrease of more than one-fifth in the short period since the first Report was published in 1957, and that despite a rising birth rate.

Mr. K. Robinson: Surely, it does not show any decrease at all in the proportion of avoidable deaths, which is the statistic that counts.

Mr. Walker-Smith: For that, the hon. Member will be able to draw his own conclusions, but the figures I am giving him are correct, just as is the decline in maternal deaths as a whole which, as I mentioned to the House the other day, have more than halved in the short period of ten years and are now down to·38 as against·87 in 1950. Again, the right hon. Lady said in this context and in regard to infant mortality that we were back in the days of the nineteenth century. At the turn of the century, infant mortality was 156. Today, it is only 23 or thereabouts. This is a decrease of a substantial degree over these decades.

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister must not misquote me. He knows precisely what I said. I quoted the report about the fact that these women had a Caesarian section performed by inexperienced people and that they were not properly treated. I said that this was the kind of report we used to have at the beginning of the century.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If that is the only point that the right hon. Lady was making, I am sorry. I do not want to misquote her, but it would be unfortunate if any wrong impression got out in regard to this matter, because the lessons of the report are clear and well understood.
Improvement depends on better antenatal care, better health education, better selection of cases for hospital care, and so on. The Report hammers all this home in an effective way which, of itself, is bound to lead to improvement. It also


reveals clearly the lesson that the vast majority of pregnancies and births are safe and that only a very small number of maternity deaths occur, less than one-tenth of the rate of thirty years ago.
I am sure that this Report will reduce mistakes that are made. I certainly welcome its contribution in so doing and assure the House that we will press on with the elimination of mistakes wherever we are able.
I now want to turn to a rather different aspect of this debate, staffing and conditions of staff, referred to by several hon. Members. I was rather struck that there were no more references to this. Had we been having this debate three years ago, it would have centred very largely, at any rate to a very considerable extent, on the grievances and criticisms on staff questions at that time. I take the relative absence of observations in regard to these matters in this debate as striking evidence of the progress we have in fact made in applying in the hospital service a system of pay and conditions reflecting appropriate comparability with work in other walks of life outside and providing an appropriate career structure. That has been reflected very much in the figures of recruitment, in the figures of recruitment of midwives, for example, which is pertinent to this question of births, and of nurses, to whom the hon. Member and others referred.

Mr. Pavitt: Mr. Pavitt rose——

Mr. Walker-Smith: I will give way, but I think it must be for the last time.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why the question of staffing has not come out more is that the working party is still sitting and so we have no result to discuss?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member is confining it to doctors. There are a great many people in the Health Service besides doctors.
We have got pay settlements in regard to nurses, midwives, administrative and clerical workers, manual workers, radiographers and all sorts of people, and soon we shall have the doctors and dentists under hatches as well. [Laughter.] I mean their pay and conditions under hatches. I was charged

by the hon. Gentleman with being too tender to them. We shall also get the report from Sir Robert Platt on the staffing structure in our hospital service, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find that it was well worth waiting for.
I turn for the last few minutes to questions of hospital building, to which a great deal of this debate has referred. I said at the beginning that we are in some difficulties in our hospital service by reason of the age of some of our hospitals and the fact that they were devised to suit quite different needs from those which exist today. It is also a fact that for various reasons which I need not now go into we were off to a very slow start in the post-war years, but it is a fact that of late the programme has gathered pace, and it is now going forward in a very satisfactory way both in regard to the erection of new hospitals and in regard to the extension and modernisation of existing ones.
The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped I would not make this point, but that is rather an old political trick, to ask one's opponents not to make the points which tell very strongly in their favour, and, therefore, I must disappoint him and insist on making some slight, passing and, I hope, appropriately modest reference to the great success we are having in this field.
We have, in fact, more than doubled the money available over the last five years for hospital building, and next year alone we expect to devote to hospital building as much money as was spent in total in the four years 1948–52. By the beginning of this year we had 180 major hospital schemes at varying stages of building or planning. We had eight new hospitals partly completed and partly brought into use. We had nine new hospitals started and we had 17 new hospitals at planning stage. These include all types of hospitals, teaching and non-teaching, general and specialist, psychiatric and others, dental and maternity and so on. But I would ask the House to believe that we are not content merely with spending money and, indeed, erecting more buildings. We are seeking to improve the design and quality of the buildings and to accelerate our procedures so as to quicken construction and to ensure that


the end product is more in tune with contemporary needs and medical skill. I would certainly assure my noble Friend the Member for Hertford and others who spoke on these points that I have been very concerned about administrative procedures in respect of approval and so on, and we have set out to improve these. It will not be long before we are able to give the House more information about the improvement of the procedures.
All in all, we are making very satisfactory progress. I would be the last to claim that all our problems are solved. Thai would be a very unlikely thing in this progressive age, but in the case of all of them we have struck our lines of advance and we are pursuing them vigorously and with a considerable degree of success. We have in these matters a good record and a constructive programme. We are giving and will continue to give an improved and developed Service which will promote

the health and well-being of individual patients and the community as a whole.

Why the Opposition should want to vote against all this good work and good progress is best known to hon. and right hon. Members opposite but is not entirely clear to me. Were I in a controversial mood tonight, I should feel tempted to castigate their attitude in terms of appropriate severity, but I feel, due to the strength of my case and other matters, in a very kindly mood indeed and therefore I will content myself with saying that the decision of hon. and right hon. Members opposite is quixotic, inexplicable, indefensible, unwarrantable and wholly perverse and I would ask the House to vote against them.

Question put, That £345,672,485 stand part of the Resolution:—

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 149.

Division No. 144.]
AYES
[9.28 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Crowder, F. P.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Aitken, W. T.
Cunningham, Knox
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Curran, Charles
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Allason, James
Currie, G. B. H.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Arbuthnot, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Dance, James
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Humphrey
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Balniel, Lord
de Ferranti, Basil
Iremonger, T. L.


Barter, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Batsford, Brian
Doughty, Charles
Jackson, John


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Drayson, G. B.
James, David


Berkeley, Humphry
Duncan, Sir James
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Duthie, Sir William
Jennings, J. C.


Bidgood, John C.
Emery, Peter
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bingham, R. M.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bishop, F. P.
Errington, Sir Eric
Joseph, Sir Keith


Black, Sir Cyril
Farr, John
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Bossom, Clive
Fell, Anthony
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bourne-Arton, A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony


Box, Donald
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Kirk, Peter


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Langford-Holt, J.


Braine, Bernard
Freeth, Denzil
Leavey, J. A.


Brewis, John
Gammans, Lady
Leburn, Gilmour


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gibson-Watt, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Brooman-White, R.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lilley, F. J. P.


Bryan, Paul
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Bullard, Denys
Goodhart, Philip
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bullus, Wing Commander Erie
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut' nC' field)


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Green, Alan
Longbottom, Charles


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Grimston, Sir Robert
Longden, Gilbert


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Loveys, Walter H.


Cary, Sir Robert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Channon, H. P. G.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacArthur, Ian


Chataway, Christopher
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McLaren, Martin


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macolesf'd)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Cole, Norman
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Cooke, Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maddan, Martin


Cooper, A. E.
Hendry, Forbes
Maitland, Sir John


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Corfield, F. V.
Hiley, Joseph
Mawby, Ray


Costain, A. P.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Coulson, J. M.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Mills, Stratton


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hirst, Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus


Critchley, Julian
Holland, Philip
Morgan, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hopkins, Alan
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles




Neave, Airey
Robertson, Sir David
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Noble, Michael
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Robson Brown, Sir William
Turner, Colin


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Roots, William
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Page, Graham
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Russell, Ronald
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Partridge, E,
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Pearson, Frank (Clltheroe)
Sharples, Richard
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Peel, John
Shaw, M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Percival, Ian
Shepherd, William
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Wall, Patrick


Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.
Watts, James


Pitman, I. J.
Smithers, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pitt, Miss Edith
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Whitelaw, William


Pott, Percivall
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Powell, J. Enoch
Speir, Rupert
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wise, A. R.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stodart, J. A.
Woodnutt, Mark


Ramsden, James
Studholme, Sir Henry
Woollam, John


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Worsley, Marcus


Rees, Hugh
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tapsell, Peter



Renton, David
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ridsdale, Julian
Teeling, William
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Mr. Chichester-Clark.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Albu, Austen
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)


Awbery, Stan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pavitt, Laurence


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Peart, Frederick


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, A. V.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Benn, Hn. A.Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.)
Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.


Blyton, William
Hunter, A. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rankin, John


Boyden, James
Janner, Barnett
Redhead, E. C.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Reid, William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jeger, George
Reynolds, G. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Kelley, Richard
Short, Edward


Callaghan, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, Arthur


Cliffe, Michael
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lawson, George
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick, (Newton)
Small, William


Crosland, Anthony
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Snow, Julian


Darling, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McInnes, James
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Deer, George
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stones, William


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mackie, John
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dempsey, James




Diamond, John
McLeavy, Frank
Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, Stephen


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Albert
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Finch, Harold
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thornton, Ernest


Fletcher, Eric
Marsh, Richard
Wainwright, Edwin


Forman, J. C.
Mayhew, Christopher
Warbey, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Weitzman, David


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Millan, Bruce
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Ginsburg, David
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gooch, E. C.
Monslow, Walter
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.
Whitlock, William


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, John
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


Greenwood, Anthony
Mort, D. L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Grey, Charles
Mulley, Frederick
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oram, A. E.
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Owen, Will
Woof, Robert


Hannan, William
Paget, R. T.



Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 




Mr. Howell and Mr. Mahon.

It being after half-past Nine o'clock Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.

Question,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Navy, Army and Air Services [Expenditure], Classes I to X of the Civil Estimates and of the Revenue Departments' Estimates, the Ministry of Defence Estimate, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates and the Air Estimates.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Navy Expenditure. 1958–59,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Army Expenditure, 1958–59,

put and agreed to.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution relating to Air Expenditure, 1958–59,

put and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61

CLASS I

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND FINANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS II

COMMONWEALTH AND FOREIGN

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Revolutions reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS III

HOME DEPARTMENT, LAW AND JUSTICE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS IV

EDUCATION AND BROADCASTING

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS V

HEALTH, HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS VI

TRADE, LABOUR AND AVIATION

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS VII

COMMON SERVICES (WORKS, STATIONERY, ETC.)

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS IX

TRANSPORT, POWER, AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

CLASS X

PENSIONS, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND NATIONAL ASSISTANCE

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class X of the Civil Estimates,

put and agreed to.

ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1960–61

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,

put and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1960–61

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Ministry of Defence Estimate,

put and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,

put and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Army Estimates,

put and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1960–61

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Air Estimates,

put and agreed to.

Mrs. Alice Cullen: We have voted all this money, yet the Monkland Canal, Glasgow——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Lady now.

WAYS AND MEANS [20th July]

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, the sum of £3,118,930,312 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir E. Boyle.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)

Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

CLEAN RIVERS (ESTUARIES AND TIDAL WATERS) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(14 & 15 GEO. 6, c. 64. EXTENSION OF S. 7 OF ACT OF 1951 TO TIDAL WATERS.)

Lords Amendments made: In page 2, line, 7, at end insert:
() Section fifteen of the River Boards Act, 1948 (which relates to the taking by a river board of samples of effluents passing into waters in their area) shall apply in relation to any controlled waters adjoining a river board area as if those waters were included in that area, whether or not those waters also adjoin any other such area.

In line 18, leave out "subsections (1) and (2)" and insert "the foregoing provisions".

Schedule.—(SEAWARD LIMITS OF CONTROLLED WATERS.)

Lords Amendments made: In page 4, leave out line 33.

In line 37, leave out from "Point" to end of line 38 and insert "to Gore Point."

In line 44, leave out from "to" to end of line 45 and insert:
the northernmost point of Blakeney Point.

In page 5, leave out lines 7 and 8, and insert:
22. The mouth of the river Ore.

In line, 27, leave out from first "the" to "to" in line 28, and insert:
West Cliff Bandstand, Ramsgate, at TR37126415".

In line 35, after "and" insert "the east".

Leave out line 38, and insert:
33. A line drawn between the seaward ends of the jetties at Littlehampton.

Leave out lines 48 and 49, and insert:
lighthouse at the seaward end of Hurst Castle Spit on the mainland at SZ31838987.

In page 6, line 7, at end insert:
39A. Lines drawn across the North Ship Channel, East Ship Channel and South Ship Channel at Portland harbour between the ends of the breakwaters.

In line 13, leave out from "to" to end of line 14 and insert:
the seaward end of the breakwater at Langstone Rock.

In page 7, line 4, leave out "SS41902905" and insert "SS41432851".

In line 18, leave out from second "Point" to end of line.

Leave out line 21, and insert:
68. A line drawn across the entrance of Solfach harbour from SM80162355 to SM79992365.

Leave out lines 36 and 37, and insert:
77. The mouth of the river Artro.

In page 8, line 16, leave out from "to" to end of line 17 and insert "SJ32259699."

Line 20, leave out from first "the" to "to" in line 21 and insert:
seaward side of Marine Drive where it is crossed by Southport Pier at SD33021787".

CHARITIES BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), further considered.

Clause 5.—(EFFECT OF, AND CLAIMS AND OBJECTIONS TO, REGISTRATION.)

Amendment proposed,
In page 6, line 12, to leave out from "purposes" to first "be" in line 13 and to insert "of taxation and rating".—[Mr. E. Fletcher.]

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) had finished his observations in support of the Amendment, and I have nothing to add to what he then said.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has had to wait a number of days to hear the reply to his observations—particularly as earlier, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, he had found a way, as he claimed, of asking a question in such a way that my right hon. and learned Friend would be out of order in answering it. However, now comes the time when I must try to answer his observations and at the same time keep within the rules of order.
The purpose of the Amendment is to limit the benefit of the conclusive presumption conferred by registration to the cases of taxation and rating. The effect would be to re-expose the trustees to the risk of actions at the suit of people


claiming in right of a resulting trust on the footing that the trust is void if not exclusively charitable. And also, of course, equally the persons dealing with the trustees.
Perhaps I can give an example of the way in which this conclusive presumption works, and I think that the House will then be satisfied that it is necessary to preserve it in all its amplitude. I take the hypothetical example of a trust called the Smith Trust. Let us say that Mr. Smith founds a trust for "the promotion of teetotal tea shops", and the Commissioners register that trust as a Charity. The next thing that happens is that Mr. Jones, a strict teetotaller, leaves his property to trustees on trust to pay the income for a certain number of years to the Smith Trust. Then the third case is that Mr. Robinson dies and leaves all his property, as to capital and income, on trust to be paid to the Smith Trust.
The residuary legatees or the executors of Mr. Robinson's will contest the charitable status of the Smith Trust. They argue, say, that the promotion of teashops, whether teetotal or otherwise, is not a charitable purpose. The way they can contest that is by seeking to remove the Smith Trust from the register.
If they succeed, the general law takes command, and in the case of the Smith property and the unexpended portion of the Jones income and the Robinson property there is a resulting trust in favour of the donors. That is so because once there is no charitable purpose all the gifts are void, as contravening the rule that to be valid the trust must be certain in point of beneficiaries so as to be enforceable by them.
The capital of the Robinson estate, which at that stage, of course, would not have been paid over, reverts to the people who are next entitled, and, similarly there is a resulting trust in favour of the original estate which formed the Smith trust. But when we come to the Jones case, where the income was payable, it is only the unexpended income which will revert to the donor; and that means that the trustees are protected in so far as they have paid over the income which they have received from time to time in good faith—in other words, on the faith of the charitable status as registered.
I hope that the House will agree that that is a great improvement on the position whereby trustees are liable at the suit of the next of kin, indeed, as are the people who have dealt with the trustees. For example, people who have received the income are liable to repay it.
I desire to add this. The only case where the charity can be removed from the register retrospectively is under Clause 4 (3), where there has been a change in its purposes. For example, if the donor has kept a power of revocation and exercises it, and the trustees fail to notify the Commissioners so that the trust can be removed from the register, quite clearly, they are at fault, and it is entirely their fault if they are then liable. This is the only case where the charity is removed retrospectively.
The sort of case that was put by the hon. and learned Gentleman is a very rare one. The day-to-day litigation in the Chancery Division is not in relation at all to existing trusts. It is in relation to new trusts. In fact, I asked what cases the Treasury Solicitor's Department know, and they say that they cannot call to mind any case in recent years in which a testamentary gift to a going concern was sought to be impeached on the ground that the going concern was not a charity. It could, I suppose, happen, and we all learned in our early days in the law about the case of Bowman v. Secular Society in which that was sought to be done, but that was many years ago.
I hope with that explanation, the House will feel that this Clause ought to stand unamended in that respect.

Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Fletcher rose——

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I must correct an omission of my own. I meant to say that it is technically comprised in that, and I thought it would be convenient to discuss the considerations relating to the next Amendment at the same time on the Question which I have proposed.

The Solicitor-General: As I am not permitted to speak again, I am entirely in the hands of the House whether I should deal with that now or whether I should ask the leave of the House to speak again after having heard the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. May I suggest that it would also be convenient to take the Amendment to line 29, to insert the new subsection (4), which is closely related to it?

Mr. Speaker: As at present advised, I am not sure about that. I would prefer not to do that. I think that clearly the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to line 13 is comprised in what we must discuss on this Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: With regard to the observations of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, I think it would be more convenient if we heard what the hon. Member had to say in support of his Amendment before asking the Solicitor-General to deal with the second Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged. It is my fault, and I should have indicated the position before.

Mr. Page: I am much obliged. I have listened very carefully to the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in detailing an example of this, but it still seems to me to be wrong that, for example, a residuary legatee under a will should be precluded from questioning whether a legacy is or is not a charity when that legacy, or the income from it, depends upon that question. It may be that when the charity applies to be registered, it is of no concern to anyone other than the trustees of that charity whether it is or is not a charity. It may be of no consequence at all to anyone outside the institution applying to be registered. But later, by reason of the death of the donor, it may become of considerable concern.
The main point about the word "conclusively" in the Clause is that a gift, by will, will take effect on death, so that a residuary legatee who wishes to question whether the institution registered is a charity or is not is too late to do so after the death. The whole matter will crystallise at that point and the residuary legatee will be bound by the registration of the institution as a charity at the date of death. It therefore seems to me that we ought to leave it as rebuttable and not conclusive evidence that the institution is registered. It would

be prima facie evidence. Anyone questioning it would have the burden of proof in proving that it is not a charity.
That could be satisfactory, but to preclude the person who never had any opportunity at the time it was registered to question the registration seems to me the wrong way to deal with it. He might not know that he would ever be concerned with it.

Mr. Fletcher: Mr. Fletcher rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member requires the leave of the House to speak again, although no doubt he will get it.

Mr. Fletcher: With the leave of the House, may I say a word in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)? I hope that the Solicitor-General will deal with one point which I raised in Committee and which he did not deal with effectively then and which was not covered by anything he said tonight.
I am concerned with the kind of case in which a donor makes a gift to an institution which is registered as a charity not necessarily for the existing purposes and objectives of that institution but for a somewhat different or associated purpose. For example, it may be a gift to a college for a specific purpose not at that time covered by any of the activities of the college but perhaps related to them. The new purpose for which that gift is made may or may not be a valid charitable object but it would certainly be a gift to an institution which, as I read Clause 5, is to be "conclusively presumed" to have been a charity.
It therefore seems to me that questions may well arise as between such an institution and residuary legatees as to whether the gift is valid. As I read Clause 5, there is to be a conclusive presumption which would prevent the courts from investigating that matter. I cannot see why the word "conclusively" is required in that context. It seems to me right that there should be a conclusive presumption in the case of liabilities for taxation and rating but not a conclusive presumption in cases which arise as between the institution and the third parties who have had no opportunity of contesting the validity of the registration.

The Solicitor-General: If the House will permit me to speak again— —

Mr. Ede: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that the Minister in charge of a Bill on Report can speak more than once in resisting or commenting on any of the Amendments?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right. I owe an apology to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). He did not need the leave of the House, either, because it was his Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I have no responsibility for this Bill.

The Solicitor-General: I asked leave of the House only because I got into trouble the other day in similar circumstances for not asking leave.
May I first deal with the case which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) put. In the case which he put it is the creation of a new unregistered charity. It does not matter at all that the trustees—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Charities Bill [Lords], exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Renton.]

CHARITIES BILL [Lords]

Debate resumed:—

10.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I was saying that the case put by the hon. Gentleman is the creation of a new unregistered charity. It matters not that the trustees already appear on the register as trustees of an existing charity. For example, if money is given to the governors of a school who are its trustees for the promotion of teetotal teashops, that is a new unregistered charity. It can then be challenged by the residuary legatees in the administration of the estate. In any case, there is no time limit on their subsequently seeking to remove a registered charity from the Register on the ground that it is not truly, when properly considered, in law a charity. If they succeed there is a resulting trust as to all property in the hands of the trustees in favour of the original donors

or the people who claim through them, but the trustees are completely protected under the Clause as to income which they have expended.
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is a slightly different one. The Clause provides that an institution shall be conclusively presumed to be a charity in respect of any period during which it was on the register, whether it was then a charity in fact and in law or not. The Amendment seeks to delete "conclusively".
I am bound to advise the House that the practical effect of that would be to nullify the whole Clause. It would create a rebuttable presumption that an institution on the register was a charity, but that is of no practical use. The only purpose of a rebuttable presumption is to alter the onus of proof so that the person who alleges the contrary must prove it. There is no question of onus of proof in considering whether an institution is a charity. It is purely a legal question: having examined the declared trusts, does it fall within the legal concept of charity? Where the matter is one of law, only a conclusive presumption can avail.
I therefore trust that with that explanation the House will feel that the Clause should stand in both of these respects as it is at present.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, at the end to insert:
(4) A decision of the Commissioners or of the High Court that an institution should be entered in or removed from the register shall state the date upon which such entry or removal (as the case may be) shall be effective and such date may be a date then past.
This is perhaps a modified form of what we have just been discussing. The Clause as it stands at present allows the Commissioners or the court on appeal to declare that an institution is not a charity and should be removed from the Register only at the date that that decision is given. It may be that the institution has been wrongly registered; that it ought not to have been registered as a charity at the outset. It may be that after registration it has ceased to have charitable objects. I should have thought that the Commissioners or the High Court ought to be permitted to say


at what date that institution ceased to be a charity and ought to be removed from the register; or, to take it the other way round, at what date an institution commenced to be a charity, and ought to have been registered.
Let me take the first example, that of the court being given the power to say when an institution that is on the register ceased to be a charity. I take, again, the case of the gift under a will to an institution which may or may not be charitable. We will assume that the gift is given on trust for that institution—not an outright gift, but given on trust. Therefore, the institution will be entitled, if it is a charity, to the income from that gift. If it is not a charity, it will not be entitled to the income from that gift, because the rule against perpetuities will be broken.
Tie residuary legatee wants to question whether or not it is a charity and, therefore, whether or not the institution is entitled to the income. Surely, he should be entitled, if the income is still in the hands of the trustees, to go back to the date of death or, if the point does not arise until some time considerably after death, to go back to the date when the institution ceased to be a charity. In short, if there is income still in the hands of the trustees, the residuary legatee should be entitled to ask the court to place a date upon which the institution ceased to be a charity, upon which the gift failed, and from which he is entitled to the income.

The Solicitor-General: The purpose of the Amendment is to give the court and the Commissioners complete freedom to select any day, past, present or future, as from which any registration shall cease to operate—or, indeed, shall begin. The first thing I would say is that the Amendment gives no indication at all of the principles upon which the apparently unlimited discretion should be exercised.
As I indicated on the earlier Amendment, the whole purpose of Clause 5 is to convert a non-charity into a charity in respect of any period when it is on the register unchallenged. That, of course, protects the trustees in respect of the tax payable, protects them in respect of their rating assessment and, indeed, protects them from actions by

the persons entitled under any resulting trust in so far as they have expended income.
The benefit of such a provision obviously cannot be made the subject of discretion, so as to enable the court and the Commissioners to alter the rights and obligations at will. The example given by my hon. Friend was that of a gift under a will or trust to pay the income, as I understood it, in perpetuity, without any limitation—

Mr. Graham Page: indicated assent.

The Solicitor-General: —to an institution which may or may not be a charity, but I think that he implied that it was on the register as a charity. If it was not on the register already, it could, of course, be challenged in the ordinary way in the administration of the estate. Let us suppose that it is on the register. The first thing that the next of kin will do will be to give notice to the trustee of the will, and clearly they will not pay over any income to the trustees of the charity. He will give notice to the trustees of the will that he is disputing the matter and they will not pay anything over until that matter has been determined on an application to rectify the register. But suppose the income is still in the hands of the trustees. If by that my hon. Friend meant the trustees of the will, then indeed any order will in practice relate back to the date of death because that will be unexpended income and there is a resulting trust in favour of the next of kin.

Mr. Graham Page: With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I would have thought that that was not so, and that the income would be apportioned as at the date when the order was made.

The Solicitor-General: This is unexpended income. I thought that the House accepted—I have no doubt about this—that in so far as income has not been expended, there is a resulting trust in favour of the donor or his next of kin or personal representative, just as much as in the case of capital.
The only case in which it is possible to remove an institution from the register with effect from some back date, other than the removal on appeal, is the obvious case to which I referred earlier under Clause 4 (3) where the trusts are altered, for example, by the exercise


of a power of revocation after it has been put on the register. In that case the removal can date back to the date on which the charity ceased to be a charity, which is the other case which was put to me by my hon. Friend.
I hope that with that explanation, my hon. Friend will see that the Clause is right as it stands.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: My hon. and learned Friend dealt with the case where there is an unexpended income in the hands of the trustees of the will. Then there is the further case where there is unexpended income in the hands of the trustees of the charity. Perhaps capital has been paid over to the trustees, and the challenge comes later, or it may be that some income has been paid over and they have not yet expended it. I think it is right that, where there is such unexpended income in the hands of the charity trustees, that has to be paid back again under the resulting trust.

The Solicitor-General: Yes, that certainly is my understanding of the law. I think that is the case that my hon. Friend cleared up in Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, to leave out from the beginning to the first "the" in line 34 and to insert:
decision on appeal has been made".
Would it be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to take with this Amendment the next Amendment, in line 39, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
(5) A decision on appeal under subsection (3) above shall not preclude the commissioners from arriving at any further decision affecting the registration or removal from the register of an institution for any period subsequent to the decision on appeal?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I think that would be convenient.

Mr. Graham Page: Under a later part of the Bill, in paragraph 1 of the First Schedule, the Charity Commissioners are stated to be civil servants. Here in Clause 5 we are giving such civil servants the power to nullify the judgment of the High Court. Putting it briefly and simply, that its what subsection (4) pro

vides. Indeed, they may nullify not only the judgment of the High Court but the judgment of another place sitting judicially if a case reached them on appeal. Moreover, it is not even a matter of formally nullifying it by any sort of order. They just ignore it. The Charity Commissioners need not bring a High Court judgment into effect if they are not satisfied that it should come into effect.
10.15 p.m.
I cannot recollect any other occasion in the law on which a High Court judgment could be ignored in such a fashion. By subsection (4), a decision of the High Court is of no effect until the Commissioners are satisfied that it should stand. This really is an impertinence and an insult to the High Court, and it is a precedent in the Bill which I respectfully submit ought not to be allowed to stand.
I come now to subsection (5). The High Court has given its judgment. The parties Tinny have gone to great expense in litigation, and the court may well have spent a great deal of time on the case. The taxpayer, too, may have been put to expense because the parties may be assisted under the Legal Aid Scheme. After all this paraphernalia of litigation, the High Court judgment may be ignored because the Charity Commissioners may, without letting it take effect, consider it afresh, and the issue is not concluded by the decision of the court if it appears to the Commissioners that there has been some change in circumstances or there is a later decision of 'the court which alters the situation.
How can the Charity Commissioners say whether a later decision of the court alters the decision Which the court has given in a particular case? They ought to apply to the High Court for a further order. It is right that they should consider the circumstances if there are fresh circumstances arising after the decision of the High Court, but not so as to make that consideration retrospective and have the effect of upsetting the judgment. It may be that, after judgment has been given, the institution changes its objects and, therefore, ceases to be a charity. Of course, new circumstances then apply and it is right for the Charity Commissioners to consider the matter afresh. But the power they are given by subsection (5) is not merely to consider


fresh circumstances arising after the decision of the High Court but to look at the whole case afresh and decide that the High Court was wrong, that they, the Commissioners, will not abide by the decision of the court at all. As I say, the matter may have gone on appeal to a tribunal much higher than the High Court, if I understand 'the matter aright.
By my Amendments, I have deleted from subsection (4) the power of the Commissioners to ignore the decision of the High Court, whether or not they are satisfied that it should stand, and by substitution of a new subsection (5) I suggest that they be given power 'to consider fresh circumstances arising after the judgment, and to that extent to regard the judgment as not conclusive, but not to review the judgment as a sort of court of appeal from the High Court.

The Solicitor-General: It may be convenient if I deal with the Amendments separately, because each raises a different point. Subsection (4) provides that where there is an appeal to the court the Commissioners are to mark the entry in the register as being in suspense, and it is to continue so until the Commissioners are satisfied whether their decision to register it is or is not to stand. I do not see how that provision merits the language used by my hon. Friend—such language as "ignoring the judgment of the High Court "or," ignoring the judgment of another place". On the contrary, when there is an appeal it is surely reasonable to put the matter in suspense so that transactions do not take place on the basis of a registration which is in dispute.
The purpose of the Amendment is to alter the words
is or is not to stand
to the words
until the decision on appeal has been made.
It is an attempt to improve the drafting.
But the Amendment proceeds on the assumption that every appeal will be decided and that, having been decided, it will stand. Neither of those assumptions is necessarily well founded. In the first place, it is quite common for proceedings to be commenced and yet neither brought to trial nor dismissed for want of prosecution. Similarly, there may be an appeal from the decision of the trial judge to the

Court of Appeal, and it may go further, to the House of Lords. Therefore, as a practical matter, the Commissioners must be allowed to maintain the suspension if they know that an appeal against the trial judge is to be brought, and, similarly, to put an end to the suspension as soon as they know that the matter is not to be proceeded with.
The Amendment 'to subsection (5) covers a different point. The purpose of that subsection is to prevent the registration of an institution becoming resjudicata—in other words, a judgment binding all parties and all persons who may be interested—so as to prevent the Commissioners from taking account of a subsequent decision of the courts, or changed circumstances, in deciding whether an institution should or should not be registered. My hon. Friend mentioned a change of purposes, but that is taken care of by Clause 4 (3). This is a change of circumstances, and 'the Commissioners cannot take a charity from the register retrospectively except in the solitary case of a change of purposes, which is dealt with by Clause 4 (3).
The purpose of the Amendment seems to be to simplify that provision by eliminating the limitations, presumably on the assumption that the Commissioners will act reasonably. It does not affect the real purpose of subsection (5); it merely removes the words of limitation. But I should have thought that there was an advantage in making it clear that the decision of the court will be final in the absence either of some subsequent adverse decision or a definite change of circumstances. First, it indicates clearly to the Commissioners and everybody else what are the events which warrant a reconsideration and, secondly, it serves to prevent any mistaken notion that there is no point in appealing. Therefore, on the general approach of my hon. Friend, it seems to me that the subsection as drafted is preferable to the subsection as he seeks to amend it.

Mr. Fletcher: For my part, the Solicitor-General has effectively answered the points made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) concerning his second Amendment to omit subsection (5) and substitute different words. It seems to me right that


subsections (5) should stand in order to prevent the operation of the res judicata rule.
I am not so happy with regard to the Solicitor-General's explanation of the wording in subsection (4). It seemed to me that the hon. Member for Crosby was sound in criticising the language. It is unfortunate language. It appears to suggest that the Commissioners have a discretion to decide whether a decision of the High Court is to stand.
The Solicitor-General said that there may be circumstances in which it is not known whether an appeal will be proceeded with or whether it may be entered and subsequently dismissed for want of prosecution. That opens up a prospect of considerable uncertainty. If that uncertainty is to exist, it does not follow that it should be right for the Commissioners to have the discretion to say whether the charity should remain on the Register.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Surely, the wording of the subsection only authorises the Commissioners to hold the charity in suspense. They cannot come to a decision on it.

Mr. Fletcher: It authorises the Commissioners to refrain from acting on a decision of the High Court until they are satisfied that the decision is to stand. We all now appreciate what is intended by these words, but having heard the argument of the hon. Member for Crosby and the attempted justification of the Solicitor-General, it seems to me that the words are not as happily drawn as they might be. I wonder whether it might be possible, even at this late stage of the Bill, for the Solicitor-General to consider whether some other words might be possible to give effect to the criticism of his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby.

The Solicitor-General: It is late in the proceedings on the Bill to start considering what would necessarily be a manuscript Amendment and one tends to get into trouble in moving one. I see the force of the observations of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). The Commissioners will act

reasonably. If there is an appeal to the High Court against their own decision, until the case has been decided the register is maintained but marked "In suspense". It is necessary to have those rather vaguer words instead of the words put by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to cover the case where there is an appeal. I believe that the intention is carried out by the drafting. But it might be much clearer if one said
until the Commissioners are satisfied whether the decision of the Commissioners is or is not to stand.
That was the point that my hon. Friend sought to make.
I do not like moving a manuscript Amendment at this stage, but that would make it more clear and it would, I hope, meet the points raised by my hon. Friend. If the House would wish it, I would ask leave to move it to make it clear that it is the decision of the Commissioners that they have to be satisfied whether or not it is to stand.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am quite prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: Speaking for myself, it seems to me that that would go a long way to meet the doubts I feel about this subsection. It may not entirely satisfy the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), but I think that, as the Solicitor-General pointed out, there is a danger in trying to embark on an elaborate reconstruction of the language of the Clause at this stage. Personally, I would welcome the suggestion which the Solicitor-General has made.

Mr. Graham Page: It only goes about 5 per cent. of the way I should like to go, but I am always willing to compromise, and so I think that the thing for me to do is to withdraw my Amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 33, after "decision" insert "of the Commissioners".—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 6.—(GENERAL POWER TO INSTITUTE INQUIRIES.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the next Amendment, in page 7, line 7, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) can be discussed with his Amendment in Clause 7, page 8, line 43, after "charity" to insert:
or to any charity which is excepted by order or regulations".
and with his Amendment to the Second Schedule, in page 48, line 43, at the end to insert:
(h) any institution which Her Majesty declares by Order in Council to be an exempt charity for the purposes of this Act.

Mr. Fletcher: I agree that it would be convenient to take the first two together, but the Amendment to the Schedule covers an entirely different point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It was Mr. Speaker's Ruling that the first of the Amendments to page 48, line 43, was not selected and might be discussed with this Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher: It is an entirely separate point. If it falls to be considered with anything it would be with the other Amendments to page 48, line 43. With great respect, it really would not be convenient, if indeed possible, to argue the merits of the Amendment or discuss it at all with the Amendments to page 48, line 43. May I move the Amendment which you have called, and discuss the Amendment to page 8, line 43 but postpone any discussion of the Amendment to page 48, line 43?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly, but the hon. Member will appreciate that the question of the selection of the Amendment to page 48, line 43, cannot alter Mr. Speaker's decision.

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate that, but you invited me to discuss it even though it is not selected.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Fletcher: What I was suggesting was that although it was not selected it might be more convenient to discuss

it when we come to the Amendments to the Second Schedule than to attempt to discuss it now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot alter the fact that Mr. Speaker has not selected it.

Mr. Fletcher: I was not challenging that, but you invited me to discuss it now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: To discuss it now, because it has not been selected.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): What, then, is the point of discussing it? If I may help the hon. Member, for I am always anxious to help on this complex Bill, that Amendment to the Second Schedule deals with exempt charities, which is a quite separate matter, and if it is not selected there is, with great respect, little point in discussing it in connection with Clauses 6 and 7.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 7, line 7, at the end to insert:
or to any charity which is excepted by order or regulations".
I will try my best to make the point which my hon. Friends are anxious to make about this part of the Bill. It will be appreciated that Clause 7 gives the Commissioners power to call for documents and to search records.

Mr. Ede: On a point of order. Is the Amendment in my name, Clause 6, page 8, line 4, which refers to a non-county borough or urban district, not selected?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That Amendment is selected and it is suggested that it be discussed later.

Mr. Ede: That is an Amendment to Clause 6 and I thought that we were discussing an Amendment in page 7, line 7.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are discussing the Amendment in page 7, line 7 at the moment.

Mr. Fletcher: The scope of the Bill is to give the Commissioners certain powers relating to charities other than exempt charities. The Clause gives the Commissioners general power to institute inquiries and the first of the


Amendments which we are discussing deals with that point. This is a very wide power. It enables the Commissioners to institute and conduct inquiries, to call for information, to require accounts and statements to be furnished to them and to obtain evidence on oath, and so on.
Exempt charities are exempted from these inquisitorial provisions. There is a considerable difference within the framework of the Bill between an exempt charity, which is a charity exempt from registration at all, and what are called excepted charities. Excepted charities are those which will subsequently be excepted by regulations yet to be made. We are in the difficulty that we do not know to what charitable bodies orders will be made describing them as excepted charities. We understand that negotiations have been taking place with a wide number of charitable institutions but with what result we do not yet know.
It is clear that these excepted charities will not be exempt from the jurisdiction of the Commissioners in respect of Clauses 6 and 7. It was thought that this difficulty might be overcome if power were taken in the Bill to extend exempt charities which are set out in the Second Schedule by giving power by order or regulation to declare various other bodies as exempted charities, and that was the object of the Amendment in page 48.
This is a matter which has caused considerable concern among religious institutions. The Church Commissioners of the Church of England and institutions administered by them are entirely exempted from the operation of the Bill. They are placed in a category by themselves, together with certain other institutions such as universities, university colleges and the British Museum. There are a large number of other religious institutions, charitable trusts, administered by the Free Churches, by the Baptist Union, by the central body which regulates the affairs of the Congregational denomination, by Roman Catholic organisations and by the central bodies of a large number of other religious denominations; and during the progress of the Bill through Committee we all thought that they should be put in the same category as the Church Commissioners of the Church of England.
The object of this Amendment and the Amendment to Clause 7 is to secure that the relief from liability to the inquisitorial powers of the Charity Commissioners should be extended to those other bodies which we understand will, when the negotiations which are now taking place are completed, be declared as excepted charities under Clause 4.

Mr. Ede: I shall confine myself strictly to the Amendment to page 7, line 7. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has said, this is a matter which gives very great concern to the Nonconformist denominations, mainly those which have a form of church government which is generally called "Congregational"; that is to say, each cause claims the right to be an independent organisation and owes little or no allegiance with regard to church government to any body outside itself. I do not think they quite come into the category alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee of those who accepted responsibility only to God and themselves. They have a working arrangement generally with some other church of the same denomination, sometimes in a county and sometimes in a rather wider district—throughout the whole of England and Wales in the case of my own denomination.
The hon. and learned Gentleman told us in Committee that a number of these excepting Orders would be made. He gave us a long and illuminating list of the various denominations—it is in col. 120 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—known to the Home Office through their having registered places of worship. I do not intend to say more about that list now except that I have it in mind in the remarks that I hope to offer to the House at this stage.
10.45 p.m.
I understand that in future there will be three groups of religious churches at least within the knowledge of the Home Office and the Church Commissioners in the admission of this Bill. There will be the exempt religious bodies and in that, as I understand it, the only one will be the Church of England in so far as the Church Commissioners have charge of the charity institutions which will be under consideration at any time. Then there will be excepted churches,


and, as I understand it, there will be a number of separate regulations dealing with the separate groups of these. I do not know how many the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks there will be, but from the way the matter was discussed during the Committee stage it appeared that there would be several hundreds of these exempt regulations and orders.
Finally, there will be a number of small, independent causes. I am not saying this in any effort to be facetious, but during the Committee stage discussion the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the Hemsworth Village Mission unsectarian, the Inghamites the Mennonites, a very distinguished nonConformist denomination with powerful connections in Holland and the United States of America and the Mispah Band. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a number of others of the same sort, where I understand there will be no exemptions and regulations dealing with this in an Act of a general nature.
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us exactly what the exception is to be. Will the exception for one denomination differ from the exception granted to another denomination? I understand that we shall not be able to discuss the question of the Baptist and Congregational Unions. That is included in the Amendment which we have down to the Second Schedule, in page 48, line 43, at the end to insert:
(h) Baptist trust corporations and Congregational trust corporations within the meaning of the Baptist and Congregational Trusts Act, 1951.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, prolonged negotiations have been going on with regard to this matter between the Churches Main Committee and the officials of his Department. One of the regrets which I have had to express more than once is that we have never been able to reach Ministerial level in these discussions. The hon. and learned Gentleman read a letter which he had received from the secretary of the Churches Main Committee. I have in my hand a letter from the solicitors to the Baptist Union saying that they do not regard themselves as being able to accept some of the things put in that letter and they have the authority of Sir Griffin Williams, the secretary of the

Churches Main Committee, to say that. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to realise that this is a matter of grave concern to the churches. They would like to know when they are likely to see the regulations which will be made in respect of them, how far they will be consulted about them and how far it will be possible to group such district organisations as they have. I use the word "district" as being a colourless word when compared with "county" or "national", because the areas will vary from denomination to denomination.
By their very nature they are denominations which resent the interference of the State. That is why 'they exist. If the Act of Uniformity of 1662 had succeeded, there would be no need to consider this matter, but that Act did not succeed and from 1689 onwards the State has recognised the rights of people to associate 'themselves for religious purposes, according to their wishes in their own organisations outside the national church.
These people now find themselves involved in the Bill and they are exceedingly anxious to know exactly what they may expect when the Bill comes into force. So far, we have not received any details on those lines from a Minister in either House and we are now approaching the very last stages of the discussions in this, the second House.
I am sorry to have had to delay proceedings for so long, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will not be surprised by the line I have taken, because it has been consistent throughout the whole of the proceedings on the Bill in this House. I urge him to tell us exactly what exception means and how many excepting orders he expects to make—I will not bind him to 100 or 200. If he can, it will be very helpful and it will re-assure people with whom I have been in constant 'touch throughout the proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. Renton: I certainly accept that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has been consistent in his attitude throughout the progress of the Bill towards the way in which the Bill and the Government propose that religious bodies should be treated. I hope that he will not think it disrespectful of me if I say that he has been not only consistent but persistent. The Amendments which we are now considering


are yet another attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to get us to depart from the policy which was declared in the House of Lords by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading, and which I attempted to explain, to elaborate and elucidate throughout the Committee stage—and even on Friday, at an earlier part of this Report stage when we were discussing registration under Clause 4—when I made very long speeches, which I shall not now repeat.
I will endeavour to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions, however, so far as it is in order for me to do so on these Amendments. The Amendments to Clauses 6 and 7—I do not know whether the Amendment to Clause 8 has been selected—are yet another attempt to get religious charities removed from the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners, in spite of the fact that the Charity Commissioners have had a jurisdiction as important as that of the courts over religious charities for more than 100 years, as they have had with other charities.
The excepting regulations under the Bill are intended to apply to those matters as to which, under the Bill, the charity trustees are expected to take the initiative, for example as to the duty to register, the duty to submit accounts and the duty to obtain approval for some transactions. It is our desire that charity trustees should, where appropriate and in the circumstances which have been explained in great detail, be relieved of the administrative trouble of taking action in respect of those matters.
Excepting regulations, however, are not intended to relieve religious charities or the great national charities or any other charities of the traditional and well-established jurisdiction of the Commissioners or the courts. In particular, we think that it is important that the powers of inquiry contained in Clause 6, the ancillary power to call for documents in Clause 7 and the power to call for accounts in Clause 8 should continue to apply to all charities other than exempt charities.
I hope that it is in order for me to refer in passing to the point which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) made when he drew a contrast

between the way in which the Church Commissioners are treated by the Bill as exempt charities and the way in which other religious charities are being treated. He well knows, because it has been stressed, that Parliament has already made ample provision for the supervising of the work of the Church Commissioners, even to the extent that they have to lay their report and accounts before Parliament—and there is no other religious charity which the right hon. Gentleman can think of, except the representative body of the Welsh Disestablished Church, which comes into anything like the same category as the Church Commissioners. The representative body of the Welsh Disestablished Church is in the same position under the Second Schedule as are the Church Commissioners.
This argument based on what is to happen to the Church Commissioners is, with respect, not a valid argument, because what we should be doing if we exempted all these other religious charities from the ordinary powers of inquiry of the Commissioners, which they have had for over a hundred years, would be to remove the safeguard which the jurisdiction of the Commissioners and the courts gives in respect of those religious charities; and we should not be replacing it with anything like the safeguards controlling the Church Commissioners today. The right hon. Gentleman said that it seems that there will be three groups of religious charities and, broadly speaking, he is right—exempted charities; excepted charities, which will be the subject, as he rightly says, of separate regulations; and the small independent sects, as he called them, who will have no exemption and no exception. It is not quite true to say that none of the small independent sects will have any opportunity of obtaining the benefit of excepting regulations, because, as I pointed out in Committee, although we have so far dealt with the Churches' Main Committee and the great national charities, there is nothing to prevent the representatives of any other denomination from coming to us on the subject.
As I said in Committee, we will greet them with open minds though not necessarily with open arms, because there are so very many of them, and it is unlikely that many of them will be able to show what the larger denominations can show


—that is, some kind of two-tier organisation which will adequately look after, for example, the question of accounts, or supply information of the kind which the register would normally contain. Nevertheless, in principle, there is nothing to prevent the representatives of any denomination making their case to us, and we will consider it sympathetically.
11.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the exceptions for one denomination differed from the exceptions for others, and the answer must be that, as I have often had cause to remind hon. Members, the organisations of our religious life in this country, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has been at pains to stress, are of great variety and differ enormously; and for that reason the regulations will have to differ, too. As I have said, they will be tailor-made to meet the needs of, and to help, the denomination concerned.
The right hon. Gentleman complained that no Minister ever saw the demominations. All I can say is that the Churches Main Committee and the other denominations have never demanded to see my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, or myself. I would willingly have seen them, and I am sure my right hon. Friend would have done so had any approach been made to either of us. But it is a fact that the Right Reverend Bishop of Chelmsford did approach my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, in another place and put the view personally as well as on the floor of the House on behalf of the Churches Main Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman asked when the denominations are likely to see the regulations. Obviously, it is impossible to give specific dates for specific denominations, and obviously nothing can be done by way of making final decisions about the regulations until this Bill has received the Royal Assent. When it has received the Royal Assent the preliminary work which has already gone far forward in finding out about the denominations, with their help, will be pressed on with, and then draft regulations will be made. That enables me to answer the next point raised by the right hon. Gentleman as to how far the denominations will be consulted. My answer is that they will be consulted fully I hope that that will assure the

right hon. Gentleman that any fears he may have lest there is any ignoring of the wishes of the denominations are fears that will prove to be unfounded. We are most anxious that these excepting regulations should meet the needs of the denominations so far as is legally and physically possible.
I do not think that in answer to this Amendment it is necessary to labour the technical points which arise. It has never been suggested in the past that the powers of inquiry in Clause 6 have been oppressively used. They are not intrinsically harsh powers and there is no reason to believe that they would be oppressively used in future. They are the necessary machinery whereby the Commissioners discover the existence and watch over the due execution of charitable trusts so that if necessary, and in the last resort, the intervention of the court can be invoked. It is certainly not our intention that there should be any exceptions from such powers except in regard to exempt charities as to which Parliament has made other arrangements.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 8, line 4, to leave out from "borough" to "and" in line 5 and to insert:
non-county borough (not being a borough included in a rural district), or urban district having passed a resolution as provided in subsection (6) of section ten of this Act
We now manage to get away from these abstruse points of Chancery law, and we get back to the more familiar ground—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I think it might be convenient to the House if we were to discuss with this Amendment the other Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, in Clause 10, page 11, line 6, to leave out from "In" in line 6 to "the" in line 7.

Mr. Ede: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think that would be very convenient.
This is the first mention in a Bill before Parliament since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1958, of the borough included in a rural district. In the reorganisation of local government which has taken place under that Act, it has been provided that a borough, which is understood will be a small


borough in population, although some may be very big in area, may be included in a rural district and will after that time exercise the powers and duties usually associated in law with a parish council. It retains the position of being a borough if it has a mace and a chain for the mayor, and possibly a chain for the mayoress, and the mayor usually robes himself. That paraphernalia may be continued. In fact, a good many places not boroughs, some urban districts, robe the mayor and provide him with a chain of office. After I ceased to be chairman of the Surrey County Council a chain for the chairman of the county council was provided, but I was never adorned with it myself.

Mr. Graham Page: They could never chain the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ede: No, I thought it would be more appropriate to chain the county or borough treasurer. It was understood when the Bill was being discussed in Standing Committee that no very exceptional powers would be given to these boroughs included in a rural district.
These Amendments to which I am speaking are directed to preventing the powers proposed to be given to non-county boroughs being retained when they become rural boroughs in a rural district, for at the moment the exercise of powers under the Local Government Act, 1958, has not gone so far as to create a single one of these boroughs.
Section 28 of the 1958 Act places a duty upon county councils
to review the circumstances of the county districts within the county and to make such proposals as are … in the interests of effective and convenient local government.
These powers include the change of status of a non-county borough to a rural borough of the nature that I have described.
Paragraph 52 of the White Paper, Areas and Status of Local Authorities in England and Wales, issued in July, 1956, states:
The Government agree with the associations' representatives that a county council should be free to recommend changes in the boundaries and status of any of its county districts, including non-county boroughs. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that these boroughs, by virtue of their Charters, history and traditions, are in a special position. The Government, therefore, consider that every

effort should be made to preserve so far as possible their identity and dignities".
Paragraph 53 of the White Paper deals with the status of a non-county borough after a decision has been arrived at that it should be amalgamated with another area. It reads:
Where a non-county borough is amalgamated with another predominantly urban area, there is not normally any reason why the whole of the combined area should not have the status of a borough. But where the result of the amalgamation would be a predominantly rural area, the title to be accorded to the new unit and the retention of traditional dignities by any borough or boroughs included in it will need special consideration. Where it is decided not to accord the title, privileges and dignities of a borough to a predominantly rural area embracing an existing borough, provision should, wherever possible, be made for the identity and perhaps certain of the dignities of the borough to be preserved within the new unit".
When a non-county borough becomes under the reorganisation of county districts a rural borough within a rural district, it will cease to have the powers conferred upon non-county boroughs as such and, prima facie, there would be no occasion to seek to ensure that a rural borough can exercise powers conferred on boroughs by the Bill unless it can be brought within the expression "dignities of the borough". The inclusion within the Bill of a special provision entitling a rural borough to exercise functions as opposed to the retaining of dignities does, perhaps, raise a question of principle, for it would be folly, having provided for the reorganisation of county districts on the basis of
effective and convenient local government
to provide, even before the reorganisation has begun, for the retention by rural boroughs of functions belonging as a class to non-county boroughs, which will remain as such and will exercise in future all the powers of a non-county borough.
I have been told that some of these boroughs which will be included in rural districts in future may have a considerable number of charities. I cannot think that they are likely to be very valuable charities, if they are very numerous; but I should have thought that it would be better—this is the first opportunity we have had of discussing the matter—that some pronouncement on the matter should be made to us by the Minister of Housing and Local


Government, whose invention these rural boroughs are.
Certainly, when I took part in the discussions in Committee on the Local Government Bill before it became an Act, I heard nothing said which indicated that this kind of power would be exercised by a body which, generally speaking, will exercise only the powers aid perform the duties of a parish council. In the words of the Bill, in respect of charities we are giving them a higher status than the county district council; to which they will send members, and of whose areas the rural non-county boroughs will form part. It seems to me that we shall be creating an anomaly, and that we may very well also be creating a position that will seriously weaken the effect of the Local Government Act, 1958, when it is applied to these districts.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman has done a useful service in putting down his Amendments, because it gives me the opportunity of explaining why it is that any rural borough—as I may call it—which may come into existence in the future should have the powers which it is likely to have under the Bill when it becomes law and which, but for words of this kind being in the Bill—words which the right hon. Gentleman wished to be removed—would have those powers taken away from it on ceasing to be an ordinary municipal borough.
The first power is that contained in Clause 6—an ancient power which they have had since the Charity Inquiries (Expenses) Act—to contribute to the expenses of the Commissioners in connect on with inquiries into the local charities in their areas. It has not been used to a wide extent, but there have been cases where it has been found very useful. The other powers affected by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendments are the power under Clause 10, whereby a local authority may maintain an index of local charities, and the power under Clause 11, whereby there may be a review of local charities by a local authority as a prelude to voluntary cooperation—and I stress that it is voluntary co-operation; local authorities have no mandatory powers of supervision—

between local authorities and charity trustees in relation to local trusts.
We feel that it is right that boroughs within a rural district should retain these powers. There are cases in which small, ancient boroughs, with quite small populations—perhaps no more than 5,000—have as many as 50 local charities. Even now, before their status has been changed, some of these local boroughs find that one of their principal remaining functions is work in connection with these local charities, of which, sometimes, they are made trustees. As these boroughs are to be preserved, albeit with greatly curtailed powers, we think it right that this one remaining power, which is an effective one, should continue to be used.
As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, these rural boroughs should be allowed to keep their golden chains, but I hope that after what I have said the right hon. Gentleman will not still think that they should have paper muzzles in respect of the powers which we are now discussing. We feel that there is ample justification for their retaining these powers, and I hope that with that explanation the right hon. Gentleman will feel willing to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I was hoping that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to say something about the point I raised concerning consultations with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, because it properly falls within his sphere and might well have been included in the Local Government Act had it occurred to anybody at the time. Was there any consultation and co-operation?

Mr. Renton: Yes, indeed. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance—I am sorry I did not do so just now—that there has been consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government about this matter. There was also consultation over the Amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), which the right hon. Gentleman supported. Those Amendments are relevant to the present Amendment, because although I have not taken the point, the agreement which we came to concerning those Amendments would be disturbed by the


Amendments now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, although I do not think he intended that. That would be a technical effect.

Mr. Ede: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the explanation which he has given, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14.—(APPLICATION cy-près OF GIFTS OF DONORS UNKNOWN OR DIS CLAIMING.)

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 14, line 6, after "court", to insert "or the Commissioners".
Clause 14 was a new Clause introduced in Committee. Although it was put down by the Joint Under-Secretary, we may claim that the credit for its introduction to the Bill belongs to my hon. Friends, who on Second Reading pressed strongly that the Bill should be amended so that the power of the court to make cy-près schemes could extend where property was given for specific charitable purposes as well as to those cases where there was a general charitable trust. We have put down the Amendment, however, because a point of some substance was not satisfactorily cleared up in Committee.
The whole object of the Clause is to enable the court to deal with the surplus funds that have resulted from general collections for charity, whether, for example, as a result of a colliery disaster or some other disaster which has occasioned a spontaneous outburst of charitable gifts, frequently of small amounts by a large number of people. In those cases, as the law stands, there is the presumption of a resulting gift to the donors, which means in practice that considerable funds, amounting, one is told, to something like £1 million, have accumulated in court and cannot be dealt with.

The Solicitor-General: I think I made it clear in Committee that sums of that sort which have been mentioned are not sums which are necessarily awaiting the claim of the resulting trustee.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to misrepresent what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, but I thought it was common ground that there are, at least,

substantial sums which, as the law stands, cannot be dealt with by the courts. The Clause is intended to give the courts power to deal with these surplus funds.
Subsection (2) provides that in certain cases there is a presumption, without any advertisement or inquiry, that the donors cannot be identified. There are, of course, other cases where the donors can be identified, and where the donors can be identified then it has been thought reasonable that an attempt should be made to communicate with them to see if they want to claim the benefit of the result of the trust or whether they want to release it. I think it was common ground that in the case of the small contributions made through collecting boxes—street collections—either the donors would be unidentifiable or it would be very difficult to identify them, and it was reasonable that there should be a presumption that those gifts could be treated as though they were impressed with the general charitable intention.
If one looks at subsection (2, a) one finds—I do not think this point was brought out adequately in Committee—the presumption that the donors cannot be identified arises in respect of
the proceeds of cash collections made by means of collecting boxes or by other means not adapted for distinguishing one gift from another".
It so happens that on various occasions there may or may not be a collecting box, but a list is sent round sometimes on occasions of local disasters to people who want to subscribe, and they not only put money in the box but also put on a card the amount which they have contributed. In those cases, of course, although there is a collecting box the donors can be identified if people go to the trouble to try to trace all the cards and make adequate inquiries. Therefore, in those cases where there have been collecting cards as well as collecting boxes it seems to me that subsection (2, a) would not apply because there would not be in the final words of the paragraph
means not adapted for distinguishing one gift from another".
Therefore the words
the proceeds of cash collections made by means of collecting boxes or by other means not adapted for distinguishing one gift from another


are not apt to cover the case where there has been a collecting box and collecting cards as well, because if there has been a collecting card the donor could be identified, with a good deal of trouble.
Cases will arise in which there is legitimate doubt, as the language of that paragraph stands, whether there is this conclusive presumption or not, if there is no conclusive presumption under subsection (2) or if there is a doubt whether there is conclusive presumption—and no doubt in other cases—the trustees can go to the court for an order that it should be unnecessary for them to try to trace the donors or to advertise. The circumstance in which the court can make such an order is where in the opinion of the court it would be unreasonable having regard to the amount likely to be returned to the donors to incur that expense, or for some other reason it would be unreasonable to put the trustees to that expense. A case in which this arose was the Gillingham bus disaster.
The object of the Amendment is to provide that in such an event the trustees should not have to incur the expense, which might be quite considerable, of going to the court for an order but should be able to obtain an order from the Commissioners. It seems to us that it is not an unreasonable Amendment to suggest. I hope that the Government will be able to accept it for the reason that the whole scope of the Bill is to give very wide powers to the Commissioners, and to save trustees of charitable trusts the burden, trouble and expense of resorting to the courts where the Commissioners can equally well provide them with the facilities which are wanted. That is why the Commissioners are being established in this way and are being given these various powers. They are the people eminently suitable for discharging these functions and doing it in a way more expeditiously and less expensively than if recourse had to be had to the court. The object is that the Commissioners in this case should have the same powers as the court.

11.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has moved the Amendment persuasively

and moderately, if I may say so wish respect, but before I deal with its real substance I should like to advert to two points which he made. The first is the question of the balances of just short of £1 million which are the unexpended balances of the mining disaster funds. This is what I said about the matter in Committee, and perhaps it is important that it should be repeated here:
It is that which has led a number of people to think that those are funds lying idle. I am told that that is not so. In practically all the cases, the money is either being used for the original charitable purposes which are not exhausted or being applied cy-près."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 30th June, 1960; c. 366.]
This does not affect the hon. Member's argument but I thought it right to repeat what I said in Committee.
The other question is the reading and construction of the Clause. 1 agree with the hon. Member's reading of subsection (2, a). I think that the words
… not adapted for distinguishing one gift from another …
cover collecting boxes as well as other means. The structure of the Clause is that subsection (1) is the normal procedure; there is the general duty to find to whom the property belongs where there is a resulting trust, and to give it back to the persons to whom it belongs. But subsection (2) provides, where the property is the proceeds of a cash collection or other means not adapted for distinguishing one gift from another, a conclusive presumption arises, without any advertising, that it belongs to donors who cannot be identified, and also in the other particular cases there set out.
Subsection (3) is a different matter. The hypothesis upon which it proceeds is that it is quite possible to find out to whom the property belongs; and it is a question of whether powers under subsection (3) should be exercised by the court alone or by the Commissioners as well. The hon. Member is right in saying that the Bill gives wide powers to the Commissioners; but it is, always has been, and appears again in the Bill, basic to the legislation giving powers to the Commissioners that they should have no powers in relation to anyone who is not a charity. That appears in a number of places in the Bill, perhaps most strikingly in Clause 18 (3), where it says:


The Commissioners shall not have jurisdiction under this section to try or determine the title at law or in equity to any property as between a charity or trustee for a charity and a person holding or claiming the property or an interest in it adversely to the charity …
That principle, I think, applies in relation to this Clause.
The Bill maintains that the Commissioners shall not have power to determine as regards property claimable by a charity and claimable adversely to whom it should belong; and it would, in our view, be a gross breach of that principle to allow the Commissioners to expropriate for charity property which, ex hypothesi, may belong to a private person. Incidentally, the Amendment gives that without any right of appeal.
Subsection (3) will normally be exercised, in our view, when the High Court is already seized of the matter and has the matter before it, say, in determining whether there is a resulting trust. It may find that there is a resulting trust, but it may say, nevertheless, that the expense incidental to an inquiry in chambers to determine who were the donors is not justified, and it will then exercise the power under subsection (3, a). Similarly, it may say that owing to the lapse of time the donors cannot be expected to have the property returned to them. But it is, in our view, right that it should be the High Court, and not the Commissioners, which should decide that property should not be returned to the persons to whom it, ex hypothesi, belongs.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18.—(CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH HIGH COURT FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 18, line 32, at the end to insert:
or to exercise the powers mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) above.
Under Clause 18 (1, b) as it stands the Commissioners have power to appoint, discharge or remove:
a charity trustee or trustee for a charity
but under subsection (4) they can exercise that jurisdiction only if the proceedings start by an application by the charity or by order of the court except in circumstances arising as described in subsection (6), and under

subsection (6) the Commissioners and the Home Secretary can take the whole matter into their own hands if they think the charity ought to have applied for a scheme.
The Clause does not say that in those circumstances where the Charity Commissioners and the Home Secretary together have initiated the proceedings the Commissioners can thereupon make a scheme. What is says is that they "may proceed accordingly" to exercise their jurisdiction under the Clause and, in particular, under subsection (1) to do any of the things there set out—under paragraph (a) established a scheme; under paragraph (b) appoint, discharge or remove a trustee; and under paragraph (c) vest or transfer property.
The point was raised in Committee about the meaning of the word "proceed." I got the impression from the answer of my hon. and learned Friend that there was no intention that the word should include anything more than making a scheme. If that be the intention, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted so that the position may be made entirely clear, that if the Commissioners are operating under subsection (4) they would exercise only jurisdiction to make a scheme and not to remove trustees.
The important point about it is that under subsection (6) the whole matter proceeds without any judicial hearing of any sort. It would proceed without an application from the charity to initiate proceedings and without any order of the court to initiate those proceedings, and entirely on the initiative of the Home Secretary and the Charity Commissioners, acting, as it were, jointly. It is true that the charity trustee would be given the opportunity to make representations, but they are to the Secretary of State and not to the Charity Commissioners acting quasi-judicially. So that if under this Clause a charity trustee were removed he would have been removed without any sort of judicial hearing at all. As the Clause is drafted he would have no right of appeal, except by leave of the Commissioners or leave of the court.
The intention of this Amendment is to make quite certain that under subsection (6) the Commissioners can only proceed to make a scheme and not


exercise their powers under subsection (1) to appoint or dismiss a trustee or vest or transfer property.

The Solicitor-General: This is a very narrow subsection. Subsection (1) gives the Commissioners power to exercise the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court for
… establishing a scheme … appointing, discharging or removing a charity trustee or … an officer or servant
and
vesting or transferring property …
That is normally exercisable on the application of the charity or on the order of the court. But subsection (6) states:
Where … the Commissioners are satisfied that the charity trustees ought in the interests of the charity to apply for a scheme, but have unreasonably refused or neglected to do so, the Commissioners may apply to the Secretary of State for him to refer the case to them with a view to a scheme …
They have to give the charity trustees an opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State, and, of course, Clause 21 applies. So subsection (6) is treating of a scheme. It gives no power to remove a trustee or anybody else, except as part of a scheme for the administration of the charity.
11.45 p.m.
If such a scheme is to be made, it would be absurd to preclude the Commissioners from making provision for the trusteeship and getting in the trust property. There is no such limitation on the powers of the Commissioners where the trustees apply for a scheme themselves, and so it would be absurd to make such a limitation where they do not.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to subsection (9), which says that the Commissioners shall not exercise their jurisdiction under this Clause in any case—other than that referred to them by order of the court—which, because of its contentious nature, or any question of fact or law, is more fitted to be adjudicated upon by the court. The sort of case where this power might be useful is that which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) in Committee in connection with what is now Clause 35, namely, the case of a charity which has existed for a long time, some 300 years or so—and there are plenty of charities which are older than

that—where the chain of trusteeship cannot be proved and the easiest way of dealing with the doubts and difficulties of title is to remove everybody but the present trustees and vest the property in them, so giving them indisputable title.
Therefore, particularly in view of subsection (9) and the need, if a scheme is being made, to get in the property and vest it in the effective trustees, I ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 19, line 21, at the end to insert:
save that where the Commissioners have by order removed a trustee, charity trustee, officer, agent or servant of a charity under the powers conferred by this section an appeal against such an order may be brought by any person so removed without a certificate of the Commissioners and without the leave of one of the judges of the High Court attached to the Chancery Division.

Mr. Speaker: It is probably for the convenience of the House with this Amendment to take the Amendment in page 19, line 18, after "appeal", to insert:
(other than against an order of the Commissioners removing a trustee, charity trustee, officer, agent, or servant of a charity)".
in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), which has not been selected.

Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged. I hope that that will commend itself to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), because the Amendment owes at any rate some of its inspiration to the hon. Member's observations in Committee.
In Committee we had a great deal of discussion on two related Clauses dealing with the powers of the Commissioners to remove trustees. Those were Clauses 17 and 19 in Committee, but are now Clauses 18 and 20.
The position is that the present Clause 19 (11) corresponds with Clause 20 (7). In Committee we found that very wide and sweeping powers were being given to the Commissioners for the first time. No objection was taken to most of them, but it became necessary to strutinise some of those powers very carefully to ensure that they were not excessive. Those two subsections were adversely criticised in another place because it seemed very anomalous that the Commissioners, who


are civil servants, should be given the right to remove a charity trustee without that charity trustee having a completely unrestricted right of appeal.
The Solicitor-General seemed to think that the right of appeal with the leave of a judge of the Chancery Division, which was originally given, was the equivalent of an unrestricted right of appeal; at any rate, he used words to that effect on Second Reading. In Committee we persuaded him that this was not so and that there was a considerable difference between an unrestricted right of appeal and a right of appeal which operated only if one first obtained leave from a Chancery judge.
We also persuaded him that it could not be just to legislate on lines which permitted a charity trustee to be removed for misconduct or mismanagement by the Commissioners without having an absolutely unrestricted right of appeal, and we were glad that in Committee he assented to that proposition, with the result that the exceptions now contained in Clause 20 (7) find an appropriate place. We thought at the same time that a similar provision should be inserted in Clause 18 (11), with which we are dealing, because, as I recollect it, the Amendment on the Notice Paper at that time was not particularly apt to give effect to the same considerations as apply to Clause 20.
What we have attempted to do here, I hope with the support of the hon. Member for Crosby and the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), is to frame an Amendment which is limited to the case of a removal of a trustee, and in that case, and that case alone, it would enable a trustee to have an unrestricted right of appeal from the Commissioners to the High Court under Clause 18 in precisely the same way as he now has under Clause 20.

Miss Joan Vickers: I support the Amendment, as I did in Committee. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on having brought the Bill so far, because there have been thirteen previous Bills which have failed, and one reason for the failure concerned the question of trustees. The Nathan Committee's Report, in paragraph 86, states that the delay in passing this legislation was due

more than anything else to resistance to the setting up of an independent board to look into the doings of trustees. Strong objection was taken by various opponents to 'arbitrary and despotic powers' 
which it was thought might be given to the tribunal,
which would have the result of 'absolutely depriving' people of the 'management of their own affairs' ".
This may be going a little far now, but I feel that the Clause does not give trustees the necessary notice of the intention to remove them as trustees. I put this point to the Solicitor-General in Committee and I understood him to say that unless he cannot be found or has no known address in the United Kingdom, the trustee must be given one month's notice. I suggest that one month's notice is too short. Surely one would want longer to find out where he is. In legislation dealing with maintenance orders, for instance, where it takes a considerable time to trace a husband, the court allows much more time than this to enable the woman to take the case before the courts. I only suggest that the Commissioners have too arbitrary rights in this case, and I hope this Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Graham Page: The Solicitor-General having accepted an Amendment to Clause 20 in Committee, it seems to me that it is impossible for him to resist this Amendment. There can be no justification for excluding this Amendment to Clause 18, similar to that in Clause 20, now that Clause 18 (6) remains unamended, and for this reason: under Clause 20, a trustee who is removed will have the benefit of notice from the Charity Commissioners that they intend to make an order and, I presume, the right to go before the Commissioners and be heard. Under Clause 20 (9) the Commissioners cannot make an order, as I understand it, removing the trustee, without giving him notice, and the only purpose of giving notice is for him to go before the Commissioners and be heard in his own defence.
Therefore, the trustee has, under Clause 20, a quasi-judicial tribunal to hear any defence he likes to put up against his removal as a trustee. But under Clause 18, if subsection 6 is used, he has no such quasi-judicial tribunal He is given the right to make representations to the Secretary of State, and


after that, whatever the Secretary of State may decide, the Charity Commissioners can go ahead and make the Order to remove him, and he has no absolute right of appeal. If he is given an absolute right of appeal under Clause 20 when he has a judicial tribunal to hear the case in the first instance, surely it is all the more necessary under Clause 18. I hope that the Solicitor-General will see some way of inserting these words into Clause 18 (11).

The Solicitor-General: Both these Amendments give an unqualified right of appeal to the court in the case of a trustee, officer, or servant being removed under the Clause by order of the Commissioners. Both are defective in certain respects, but the Amendment moved is by far less defective than the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). But as my hon. Friend's Amendment has not been selected for Division and as in any event I am going to advise the House not to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), I may, perhaps be excused from going into these matters.
There are five solid reasons against accepting this Amendment, and they are reasons of principle. The first is that the position under the Bill as regards an absence of an absolute right of appeal against a Commissioners' Order has stood since 1860 and, so far as I know, it has stood without objection. Secondly, an unqualified right of appeal makes very little sense in the context of Clause 18. Subsection (9), as I pointed out on the previous Amendment, precludes the Commissioners from acting at all under this Clause in any contentious or difficult case. I gave an example on the previous Amendment, which I will not repeat, about the sort of cases where they will operate under this Clause.
12 midnight.
Thirdly, the Commissioners have no power to act under this Clause of their own motion, and that is the fundamental difference between this Clause and Clause 20 and why it seemed to the Government right under Clause 20 to accept the Amendment that was moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) in

Committee, which appears now in Clause 20 (7).
Fourthly, if anyone has a legal point to argue, the consent of the Commissioners to the appeal has invariably been given. As I say, this restriction has existed since 1860. So that there should be no doubt at all about it, the Bill for the first time gives the additional right to go to a judge of the Chancery Division. If the proposed appellant cannot satisfy either the Commissioners or a judge that he has got a point to argue, it is really of no great practical importance to allow him to bring an appeal.
Fifthly, and by far the most important, the whole of the costs of defending the Commissioners' decision would fall on the charity in any event, and almost certainly the costs of the appellant—

Mr. Fletcher: The court has a discretion.

The Solicitor-General: The court has a discretion. I said that the costs of defending the Commissioners' decision would fall on the charity. Most charities have a total value of less than £1,000. Large numbers, particularly the oldest, have a rent charge of something like £5 a year. The mere issue of proceedings by way of appeal can constitute a threat to the private pockets of the trustees, in that the charity ex hypothesi in those cases cannnot meet the cost. It is such a threat to the private pockets of trustees as in effect to paralyse the charity indefinitely. A small rent charge is no adequate indemnity against the cost of an appeal to the High Court, and perhaps after that a further appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The trustees are people acting in a public capacity. After all, everybody, from admirals to company directors, can be removed from their offices, with possible damage to their reputations, but nobody has suggested that any of them can go running to the High Court with a right of appeal. As I say, it is a public office and it would be very difficult to instance a case of another public office which does enjoy the same right of access to the courts as a charity trustee.
In the end, it comes down to this. This Clause cannot operate in any contentious matter. If anybody has suffered injustice in the last 100 years by reason of the Commissioners' action, nobody seems to have heard of it. And the fact


that the costs are likely to fall on the trust—in other words, on the beneficiaries—in my submission makes the acceptance of either of these Amendments impossible.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Mr. Fletcher.

Mr. Fletcher: I am not proposing to move the Amendments to Clause 29, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) proposes to move any of them.

Mr. Ede: It is no good moving Amendments, and I do not propose to waste my time or that of the Committee.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not propose to move my Amendments to Clause 29 either.

Second Schedule.—(EXEMPT CHARITIES.)

Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 48, line 43, at the end to insert:
(h) Baptist trust corporations and Congregational trust corporations within the meaning of the Baptist and Congregational Trusts Act, 1951.
I was hoping that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) or the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) would be here to move this Amendment, but, in their absence, I feel that I must move it because it affects a considerable number of people and a body of national importance. The matter was discussed in Committee, and I think it ought to be considered here in the House.

The Solicitor-General: It seems to me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the next Amendment, in page 48, line 43, at the end to insert:
(h) the British and Foreign Unitarian Association Incorporated.
raises very much the same point, and that the two might conveniently be discussed together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that that would be convenient, if the debate is limited to these two bodies.

Mr. Fletcher: For my part, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall limit what I have to say to the Baptist trust corporations

and the Congregational trust corporations, and I shall leave it to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to deal with the case of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association Incorporated.
The cases are similar, in that all these Noncomformist organisations desired to be placed in the same category as the Church Commissioners of the Church of England and to be completely exempted from the obligations of the Bill. It was felt that, otherwise, there would be a very invidious distinction between them. I regret that it is necessary to put on record the very unsatisfactory nature of the negotiations between these organisations and the Home Office which have been so protracted and which, apparently, have not yet produced any result, certainly not a result satisfactory to the Baptist and Congregational bodies.
I cannot do better than quote from a letter, dated 28th June, from the hon. Member for Wimbledon, who has been conducting the negotiations on behalf of the Baptist Association, to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. My right hon. Friend quoted this letter in Standing Committee. It says that a Mr. Beaumont, the senior member of a firm of solicitors,
points out that the London Baptist Property Board Limited has been in existence as a trust corporation for many years on behalf of the London Baptist Association which comprises upwards of 280 Baptist churches. It really would be too bad for the Home Office now to go back on the arrangement which was apparently reached at the recent conference there. I thought you would not mind my informing you of the present position as I know your great interest in this matter, and I am sure you will take any action that may be necessary in the matter.
There was also a letter dated 27th June from Mr. Beaumont, the solicitor, to the hon. Member for Wimbledon, which reads:
Further to my letter of 26th April, there was a meeting at the Home Office on 27th May. A civil servant and a member of the Home Office Legal staff discussed the provisions of the Bill with Mr. Gordon Fairbairn and his son (representing the Baptist Union), my son and myself (representing London), with representatives of the Baptist Missionary Society, the Strict Baptists, the Congregationalists, and others. The discussion for the most part was on the subject of the registration of charities and was of a very helpful character.


There was also some discussion about Clause"—
now Clause 29—
of the Bill. The civil servant gave us all quite clearly to understand that as regards Baptist, Congregationalist and other similar Churches the regulations would be drafted so as to exempt from the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners all trust funds and properties if held by a Trust Corporation having denominational recognition under the Baptist and Congregational Trusts Act, 1951. On that basin we felt content.
Mr. Richard Fairbairn (acting on behalf of his father who is out of London on holiday) has told me today that the civil servant is now 'hedging', and that the regulations are likely to be drafted so that exemption will be accorded only to the Baptist Union Corporation Limited. Presumably this is because that Corporation is regarded as having national status. Mr. Richard Fairbairn has told the civil servant that we were all given a clear statement that exemption would extend to include all denominationally recognised Trust Corporations. At his request we have today written to the civil servant and I enclose a copy of the letter.
That is all I need read, although my right hon. Friend may have something to add. I merely desire to place on record what I understand is the disquiet felt by those responsible Nonconformist organisations that they are not going to be placed in the same category as exempt charities, in which category they feel entitled to be placed.

Mr. Ede: I am speaking to the second of the Amendments which we are discussing together. The British and Foreign Unitarian Association Incorporated is a body which has been created under Acts of Parliament, and I understand that although it is not in the same statutory position as the two bodies which were created by the Act of 1951 it has the same sort of responsibility and would discharge all the duties placed on it by the Bill if amended in the way now suggested.
The Baptists and Congregationalists have all their churches on a congregational basis, and although many Unitarian churches were in fact Presbyterian in origin, they are now mainly organised on a congregational basis. It may be very onerous, especially for some of the smaller churches connected with these denominations, to have to comply with all the requirements of the Bill. All the officers of individual churches may not have the capacity to deal with some of the subjects which

may be raised with them by the Charity Commissioners and the Home Office.
These bodies—the two under the 1951 Act and the British and Foreign Unitarian Association Incorporated, for which I am more particularly speaking—have been formed by the central bodies of these denominations, so as to help the individual churches in such matters as this. Generally speaking, as I understand it, they at least have the responsibility of appointing one of the trustees to the board of trustees which governs the individual charity. As I said in Committee, I am not asking that they shall be given any responsibilities which they do not undertake to discharge, and which they are not capable of discharging.
12.15 a.m.
It is greatly to be desired that this assistance should be given to the individual churches and that they should be able to approach this matter with the advice and help of the national organisation where they are willing to avail themselves of it, because many of these independent churches regard the mere handing over of such powers as they would have to do to make the two Amendments effective as a derogation from the independent attitude that they traditionally adopt of feeling that the body of believers who constitute the church are a self-contained community and that they should preserve their independence even from neighbouring churches of their own denomination.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentlemen who are facing me now and with whom I have had long association over the Bill will feel that at last there is something on which they can make a small concession. The Solicitor-General complimented my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and said that he had been persuasive and moderate. Having said that, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to treat my hon. Friend's Amendment in just the same way as he treated the Amendments I had moved truculently and with no great hope that they would meet with any response on the Government benches.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I moved a manuscript Amendment to meet


the point made by his hon. Friend. When the right hon. Gentleman calls himself truculent, we are conscious that he is showing an unexpectedly retiring disposition, and we are very sorry for it.

Mr. Ede: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for what, I have no doubt, was intended to be a compliment. It was not, however, the Amendment that my hon. Friend moved moderately and persuasively to which the hon. and learned Gentleman moved the manuscript Amendment. It was another one altogether and it originated from the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).
I ask the representatives of the Government to realise that I frequently hear boast made of the value of the voluntary associations which most churches of the kind that come within the category of these two Amendments are. We are told that they are particularly English as a contribution to the social life of the nation. I hope that the two hon. and learned Gentlemen will be able to recognise this in the response they make to these Amendments.

Mr. Renton: The intention of these Amendments is to exempt all the charities of which these particular trust corporations are trustees, but the terms of the Amendments are ineffective to achieve that purpose. The only purpose that they would achieve would be to make the corporations themselves into exempt charities. As these corporations, in the main, are not charities at all anyway, it would be rather pointless to try to do so and, indeed, quite wrong.
The first and primary object of most of the Baptist trust corporations, for example is
The promotion of the interests of the Baptist Denomination.
Generally speaking, they have express power to act as trustee for
any person … association … or cause connected with the Baptist Denomination.
Those are not exclusively charitable objects. To list the corporations themselves as exempt charities, therefore, would not serve a sensible purpose.
Even if they were charities—and we are inclined to think that the second one, in which the right hon. Member for

South Shields (Mr. Ede) has expressed an interest, the British and Foreign Unitarian Association Incorporated, may be—there would be little point in listing them in the Second Schedule, because, so far as we can discover, they have little or no property of their own. They are in the main companies limited by guarantee, held with no share capital, and a guaranteed capital which is seldom capable under their constitution of exceeding £100.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) tonight has done what his right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields did in Committee, which is to read out a letter complaining about the way in which part of the negotiations with the Home Office has been going, and I must do what I did in Committee, which is to give an assurance that there is no intention whatever of hedging, so far as Clause 29 is concerned—it was then Clause 28 at the time the letter was written—and to stress that we have no intention whatever of departing from the undertakings given about excepting regulations by the Lord Chancellor. I hope the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman will accept the assurance.
The letter was really mistaken even so far as Clause 29 was concerned, because if anything is holding the matter up it is this question to which I have referred in rather more elaborate terms bust which can be summed up as the difficulty of corporations which are merely acting as bare trustees. I should make quite clear what the position of these corporations is and will be. I am speaking only of the bodies referred to, the Baptist and Congregational Union corporations. They are merely corporate trustees instead of individual trustees. They will be treated in the same way as other property holding corporations set up by other denominations. We have gone over this at length in Committee, but broadly, the Government will be prepared to except from control land held by a corporation acting as custodian or managing trustee on trust for religious purposes where the proceeds of sale are applicable for the general purposes of the demonstration or whatever local religious organisation the corporation represents, and there is adequate two-tier supervision within the denomination.
We cannot except trusts of land restricted to a particular purpose, or held by the body as bare trustees with no responsibility. There is nothing to stop a corporation holding such trusts. The Government cannot do what they seem to ask for and except all property whatever which may be held by them. Moreover, these corporations differ in strength and size, and we must have a good look at them to satisfy ourselves they measure up to the conditions which have been expressed in the undertakings and find words which will express the position which I have so often tried to explain.

Amendment negatived.

Third Schedule.—(ENLARGEMENT OF AREAS OF LOCAL CHARITIES.)

Mr. Renton: I beg to move, in page 49, line 23, to leave out paragraph 5.
This is a drafting Amendment, but as I cannot believe that there is a desire to hear a speech from me at any later stage, I should very much like to take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and those few hon. Members on both sides of the House who have helped us with this Bill, have worked very hard in scrutinising it, have don, a lot of valuable work, and have mace constructive suggestions, which were necessary and which we have found most helpful. I should like to express my warmest thanks to them, especially, if I may, the Solicitor-General, from whose wise and patient and skilful guidance we have benefited so much.
I should like also to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) who has had a lonely task, especially tonight. He has borne a very great burden for the Opposition which certainly needed to be borne. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has a great interest in religious trusts, and I hope that even now he may feel, as I reminded him the other day, that
In faith and hope the world will disagree, But all mankind's concern is charity.

Mr. Ede: You did not rule the hon. and learned Joint Under-Secretary out of older for the personal remarks he made. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I say

that I have enjoyed my association with the Bill? But I regret that, as far as I can see, nobody has profited from my efforts. The hon. and learned Gentleman said in Committee about this same stage that there had been batsmen and bowlers but there had also been an outfield who had watched them and had rendered a useful service. We have so many hon. Members here now that it is quite evident that they are expecting the last man very soon to be out and I would not delay them from that pleasure.

Mr. Graham Page: May I also have one sentence out of order in congratulating most sincerely from this side of the Chamber my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary for the Home Department and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on carrying the Bill through to this stage and being so kind to us on the back benches in conducting a Bill to which I personally still remain wholly opposed?

Sir Hugh Linstead: A Minister and a right hon. Gentleman having been out of order, perhaps you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker and the House will give me the opportunity of being equally out of order for a very personal reason. We have circulated to us from time to time in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of Ministers and Principal Officers of the House. In that list there are two hon. Members who are neither Ministers nor Principal Officers. One is Parliamentary Charity Commissioner and the other is Second Church Estates Commissioner. As the Bill brings to an end my tenure of office as Parliamentary Charity Commissioner, I hope that the House will allow me very briefly to say that on balance I am very glad to see the Bill being passed and to see the improvements it makes not only in the law relating to charities but in the way in which the Charity Commission will be able to function more amply in the future.
If I have a criticism it is the rather fundamental one that in future the Charity Commissioners are to be appointed by the Home Secretary and not by Her Majesty. I thing that the bringing of the Executive still closer into contact with charities is not a wise procedure. It may to some extent dry up the source of charities in some cases. Nevertheless, taking the Bill as a whole.


one has to recognise an improvement in the law of charity. In the two Houses the Home Secretary's powers have been substantially cut down and therefore one has every reason to hope that the Commissioners will function very much as they have done in the past and that the Executive will not be interfering too closely in the administration of charities.
I should like to thank my colleagues on the Commission for the friendly way in which they have collaborated with me over the last few years and also the House for the way it has allowed me to pilot Bills with very exotic titles through all their stages with, I think, only one interruption from the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on one occasion. I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway, who asked me the only Question I shall ever have tried to answer in the House, and hon. and right hon. Members for the applause they gave me on that occasion upon my satisfying an hon. Member who is not normally satisfied at Question time.
Retiring from this office which has given me so much pleasure and satisfaction, I am leaving my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir H. Ashton) as the sole example extant of the genus Parliamentary Commissioner.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has concluded his career with a very disorderly speech.

Mr. Fletcher: I should hate to be out of order, but I should equally hate to be excluded from this exchange of pleasant courtesies. I am sure that all of us who have taken part in the discussions on the Bill feel that we have been engaged on a very useful and fruitful piece of constructive legislation. We are all glad, as we said on Second Reading, that the Government have been able to embark on this task and carry it through. We feel that there are still certain defects in the Bill, but we are nevertheless glad that it will be put on the Statute Book. We are glad to have had the opportunity of making some modest improvements in it.
At this concluding stage, I should like to thank both the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for their thoroughly patient, courteous and conscientious

replies to all the points that we have raised at the different stages.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

STEEL BARS AND ROD (SUPPLIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

12.32 a.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: After all the courtesies on the Charities Bill and all the very nice compliments paid across the House, I should like, in the time left to us, to discuss the hard facts of the iron and steel industry in relation to some of the problems which concern firms and people in my constituency.
It is one of the delightful fiexibilities of this House that an hon. Member can retain it when he has the Adjournment, and I intend to do it to the full extent of my 30 minutes. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power for being present. I hope I shall give him enough time—about 15 minutes—to reply to me, because I want a good answer. I ask him to indicate when he thinks I have spoken for my 15 minutes.
I am a little chagrined. I have been reading the Star newspaper in the Library and looking at my fortune under "What the stars foretell". I am informed, having been born under the sign of Leo, that I should finish my day's work as early as possible. I should probably have finished it about three hours earlier had it not been for the Bill which has been before the House. I hope that what the stars foretell for me in the Star this evening does not mean that I shall not be able to get a taxi to my abode tonight.
To get down to the brass—or steel—tacks, my main complaint and that of my constituents and a little firm of great importance in my constituency is simply that no matter how much the firm has tried, it has been unable to purchase any rod or bars from any of the rod or bar rolling firms in the country. Since the firm was established nearly three years ago, in spite of inquiries through Governments Departments and the Iron and


Steel Federation,—I must have had more than 70 letters about this problem; I could give dates and quote advice that has been given had I time—the sad fact is that the firm—it is also true of many other small firms—has been unable to get the rod, bars and wire which it has needed for the business in which it is engaged—reinforced concrete, an industry which is of paramount importance in civil engineering, in railway extensions, in road building and in mining industry extensions.
In November of last year, the Iron and Steel Federation supplied the Reinforced Concrete Specialists and Engineering Company in my constituency with a list of rod producers, and each was approached for supplies but without success. With its usual courtesy and attention to duty, the Ministry has replied to the number of letters which I have written. In April, I was informed that the home production of reinforced bars and rod had increased and was running at record levels and that supplies were adequate to meet the requirements of consumers. I was also told in April that bars and rod, like all steel products, could be freely imported, subject to the payment of import duty, which was 10 per cent. ad valorem.
On 12th May, the Minister said in a letter to me that I could assure the corn-pans- that action for the suspension of the duty on wire rods was being examined. Since then that has happened. That is the First step in the right direction, and I see that the import duty on wire rod has been temporarily suspended until the end of the year. Undoubtedly, this is the results of the courageous efforts of a number of small firms in the country, including the B.G. Engineering Company at Kidsgrove, which brought pressure to bear. It may sound strange, but the fact is that there is a need for the suspension of the tariff because there is not a sufficient supply of wire rod and bars in the country.
Can the Minister assure me that he will contact firms throughout the country who are interested in this business before he reimposes this tariff? I do not feel in a very combatative mood at this time of night, and had the matter been raised at Question Time or during an ordinary debate I should have pressed the point more vigorously.
Nobody can hide the fact that there is a monopoly in the steel rod, bar and wire business. It is no good talking about the initiative of the little man, because he is not being allowed to use his initiative in the steel industry. Wire rod is drawn down into wire and used for the manufacture of reinforcing fabric, and that entire industry can be squeezed by a ring or restrictive practices. To be able to compete with that ring, a firm must have an assured access to wire rod and bars. That is the difficulty, and that is the restriction. Firms cannot obtain sufficient supplies of wire rod or bars from British producers, and there is a severe shortage of that class of material.
I now come to my evidence. I have with me the address of the chairman of the Lancashire Steel Corporation, Sir John James, to the corporation's annual general meeting on 11th February, 1960, when he said:
The most notable feature of the year just concluded was the extraordinary difference in the demand for our products, particularly small sections, rods and wire. In the early months, that is to say, from October, 1958, to May, 1959, the demand was extremely meagre; in fact, it was a constant worry and preoccupation to obtain enough orders to make up reasonable rolling tonnages for the Mills each week—indeed, some were working on short time. About May, 1959, however, the demand, particularly for rods and wire, suddenly revived, and from then onwards has continued and increased to such a degree that in spite of working our Rod Mills to their utmost capacity we cannot meet the demand made upon us by our customers and our own Subsidiary Companies. Whilst this is a very welcome change, nevertheless we wish we were in a position to supply more of their requirements.
In a debate on the subject in June, my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) pointed out that, despite all this gasconading and publicity about the steel industry, the solid facts—and we are not now on the rostrum fighting a general election trying to gain cheap votes, but facing the economic realities of the country's situation—were these:
When we ask questions concerning sheet capacity, we are always told—I was told it again today—how rapidly the industry is increasing its supplies of sheet. Let us look at the real picture, taking 1955 as the base year—and 1955 was a crisis year in steel. In no quarter of 1956 did we again reach the 1955 figure. In the first two quarters of 1957. as also in 1958, we failed again to reach the 1955 figure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June. 1960; Vol. 625, c. 974.]
We have had to import steel, and we have had a total increase of 355 per cent.


in imports of sheet steel. The British steel industry has not been meeting requirements.
The result of that failure is shown in a letter sent by my constituents to the British Iron and Steel Federation, in which they said:
The result of the B.G. Engineering Company, Kidsgrove, being unable to obtain rod is that not only has their business been jeopardised and men laid off, but also we in turn have been forced to return to our customers approximately £12,000 worth of work and orders during the last eight weeks rather than break faith with our customers regarding delivery. It will be appreciated that this kind of thing and our inability to quote for fabric a definite delivery is having a serious undermining effect on our efforts to establish our firm.
The firm wanted to establish a new industry in North Wales. It applied to the Treasury for grants and, despite the fact that cuts in prices to 17½ per cent. below market prices were allowed by the Treasury experts—in a few years' time it would have been able to meet all its commitments—the firm did not receive the grant from the Treasury to start the new industry in North Wales. That is not in my constituency, but it is linked with it. The reason for the failure to get the grant was that there was no assurance of supplies of rod and bars.
The Press representative of the Iron and Steel Board has sent all hon. Members some information. Let us first get rid of the propaganda. The purpose of the Board is shown in this phrase,
Public supervision of the United Kingdom iron and steel industry can be interpreted both as the response to the needs of public policy and as the outcome of historic evolution. The industry is basic. In such an industry the forces of the market alone would not always ensure efficient, economic and adequate supplies at reasonable prices".
That was one purpose of the Board, but one purpose not held by the Board is indicated on page 29 of the Board's Report:
The duty derives directly from the Iron and Steel Act, and it is no part of the Board's function to examine trade practices in the terms of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956.
I should like to name the firms if I could, but there is no doubt that restrictive practices have taken place. How can firms in both new and old areas of industry keep going unless they have adequate supplies? The steel industry is

not meeting its commitments. One way in which the Minister can help is by taking the duty both off wire and off rod and bars. I hope that he will be able to give me some positive information on that this morning. If he cannot, then I assure him that I shall exercise every legitimate Parliamentary method of keeping this matter before the Government. I am sure that we shall have an instructive and, I hope, a pleasant answer from him.

12.47 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): I thank the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) for the co-operation he gave me in preparing for the debate; I found it very helpful. I was surprised by his quiet attitude this morning. He is normally much more combative. I felt that his quiet attitude was due to the fact that he has not a very strong case to put forward. He confined himself mainly to his constituency troubles and to the supply of ferro-concrete rods and bars and of wire rod. It would be right for me to confine myself mainly to these two products. One is used, as produced, for reinforcing concrete, and the second is usually drawn into wire and used for a multitude of purposes, including the reinforcement of concrete.
Let us look at the production position of these two steel products. The United Kingdom production of ferroconcrete bars and rods is expected to reach 600,000 tons in 1960, which is 20 per cent. above the output last year, which was itself a record year.
With wire rod, production this year is expected to reach 1½ million tons, which is also 20 per cent. above the 1959 output, which itself was again a record. In fact, the production of these two products has increased over the last three years. Home produced wire rod deliveries in 1958 were 1,133,000 tons; in 1959, 1,242,000 tons; and in 1960 are expected to be 1½ million tons. Small quantities were exported and small quantities were imported.
With bars and rods, deliveries from home production in 1958 were 396,000 tons; in 1959, 500,000 tons; and are expected to be 600,000 tons in 1960. That is a steady progression of rising output in these two very important products. As the hon. Member said, the


pressure from home demand has been strong, but it is true that with the help of only minor imports the industry has been able to meet total demand. That minor help of imports in the case of wire rods was 3 per cent., and in the case of bars and rod 4 per cent. Nevertheless, discussions took place between the Iron and Steel Board and the users in April. As a result, it was found that demand was outstripping production, even though production was rising so well, and that a significant increase in imports of wire rod would be needed in 1960.
'These discussions between the main users and the Board—not as the hon. Gentleman said, between a large number of small firms fighting their own battle against the Board—were arranged under the usual consultative arrangements in the industry, whereby the Board, the producers and the big consumers get together to consider the health of the industry and suggest what steps are needed, if any, to improve matters.
After the April meeting, they made suggestions to the Board of Trade regarding the suspension of the import duty, and the Board acted pretty swiftly. On 24th June an Order was made suspending the import duty from 1st July to 31st December. That is the result of the comprehensive arrangements that are always in being between the Iron and Steel Board, the producers, and main consumers.
Individual difficulties can be dealt with, and are certainly dealt with, by invoking the aid of the Iron and Steel Federation or the Iron and Steel Board. I hive a lot of experience in handling these complaints, and in almost every case I never hear about them again. I conclude, therefore, that the consumer gets satisfaction. So individual complaints can be and are dealt with satisfactorily.
What is not in existence is a system of allocating supplies to individual consumers. Our experience is that the informal arrangements, the normal commercial arrangements, work very well indeed, and the swift withdrawal of the tariff is an example of how consultation takes place for the health of the industry.

Mr. Harold Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that the Reinforcement Manufacturers Association

Limited, or the I.I.S.W.M. are not themselves acting in a ring and keeping out these little people?

Mr. George: I am coming to that point later on. Please do not use any more of the time or I shall not be able to make a satisfactory reply. In spite of what the hon. Gentleman said, I was going to add that the Ministry of Works is unaware of any building project which has been or is being held up in this country through a shortage of reinforcing bars or wire rod. But, although the tariff has been withdrawn because it is expected that imports will be significant this year, the industry is not prepared to stand idle, and they are making plans for increasing production, and in the last Report of the Board three projects were detailed. These three projects, resulting in a fairly big expansion of output, will be completed at various dates, beginning this summer and ending in 1962.
The Lancashire Steel Rod and Bar Mill, at Irlam, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, will be completed in the summer of 1961. Important projects are in train to increase the production of wire rod and bars and rods. That, we hope, will lead to the end of the suspension of the tariff because the supply from home sources will have met the home demand. The picture is this: In supplies of bars and rods and wire rod there has been an increase in production in the past three years. That has been matched by a steadily rising demand. The meetings in April forecast that demand would rise faster than production, and the Board of Trade acted by suspending the tariff in June.
There are three new projects for 1960, 1961 and 1962 which will provide additional output, and we expect will more than meet home demand. That is the general picture—rising production at the moment not meeting demand, but additional production in train to stop the imports and meet home demand from home sources.
The hon. Member has raised two points relating to his constituency. He referred to two firms—the B.G. Engineering Company and the Reinforced Concrete Specialists and Engineering Company. We can rule out the B.G. Engineering Company right away. It had discussions with the Iron and Steel Board some months ago and the Board has


heard nothing from that company for the last few months; we can only conclude that as a result of the action taken, that company is now receiving satisfactory supplies.
That leaves us with the Reinforced Concrete Specialists and Engineering Co. situated in the hon. Member's constituency. This company wishes to produce reinforced mesh for concrete reinforcement. The company has complained of inability to obtain supplies and has alleged, as the hon. Gentleman has alleged, that there are restrictive practices between the rod makers and the Reinforcement Manufacturers' Association. He said, I think, that this was an important company in his constituency. In fact, as far as wire rod is concerned, it has no factory at all, so this cannot be an important firm.

Mr. Harold Davies: It is linked with B.G.

Mr. George: It has no factory for using rod. But I think it has tentative plans. The company wants wide guarantees before building a factory. The first guarantee that it wanted, and the first fight it made, was for the reduction of the tariff. As they said in their letter of 3rd May to the hon. Member, their object was the removal of the tariff. The tariff was removed, and they were satisfied. They said in their letter of 30th June to the Board of Trade:
We are extremely grateful to receive information as contained in your letters … that Import Duty is to be temporarily suspended on wire rod in coil …
They go on to say:
This action on the part of the Board of Trade now means that we can obtain wire rod from foreign sources, at prices comparable to British prices.
There we have an expression of satisfaction in connection with their main fight, which was the removal of the tariff.
Then they go on to say:
We now wish to implement our plans to enter the field as producers of reinforcing fabric … our requirements … will be appreciable … It will however be approximately 12 months before we require these appreciable supplies. That is after we have erected a factory and installed the plant …
They make another intriguing suggestion:

In view of the fact that it will be 12 months before our factory is ready to go into production, when tariff may have been already reimposed, we hope that the Board of Trade will immediately support our request for removal of tariff, if we find ourselves unable to obtain the necessary assurances of supply from firms in this country.
That is a curious suggestion to make to the Board of Trade. Indeed, it would appear that the company wishes the Board of Trade to take its instructions from the company and to have regard solely to the company's supply position, instead of using a comprehensive survey covering the whole field of supply.
The hon. Gentleman asked for assurances that the Board of Trade would consult the firms. Of course, it will consult the firms. The Board of Trade is continually consulting the firms, but it will not, as requested here, impose the tariff again only if this company can be assured of receiving full supplies.

Mr. Harold Davies: Mr. Harold Davies rose—

Mr. George: No, I am sorry, but I cannot give way now.
The supply position for this firm has been cleared for six months by the suspension of the tariff. It says that it can get rod from abroad at reasonable prices. It is logical to say that if the President of the Board of Trade suspended the tariff because imports were necessary, he would hardly reimpose the tariff if imports were still necessary. That assurance can be given to the company.
The company claims that it cannot get supplies from home sources. The position is that deliveries have lengthened; home users are pressing for delivery, and it is unlikely that steel producers are willing to take on new customers, especially new customers who have no factory at all, only plans.
In the few moments remaining, I should like to quote from a letter which does give some hope to the company. This is the Iron and Steel Board speaking:
It is recognised that when a new company wishes to come into the engineering field, there may be particular difficulties in getting their arrangements, such as factory space, machinery, finance, supply of materials … all organised reasonably at the same time. It would be understood that firm arrangements in any one of these fields might have to depend on the others. Nevertheless, if the company are able to show progress with the other parts of their organisation it would not be expected


that any insuperable difficulty would remain in arranging supplies of steel, although some part of the initial needs might have to be imported.
That is the position. The company can get supplies from abroad in the meantime, and, once the factory is a reality, then the company becomes a supplier needing the consideration a supplier should have.
The hon. Member spoke of monopoly and rings, as he put it. He produced no evidence. The company produced no evidence. I took care to have the matter investigated, and the Iron and Steel Board has consulted the file of the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements. I am informed that no record can be found of any agreement between the rod makers and the Reinforcement Manufacturers' Association which ensures members of the Association preferential treatment in rod supplies. It does not exist. The Registrar has power to require agreements to be registered if he has reasonable cause to

think that an agreement subject to registration exists. It is the function of the Registrar to look into evidence that a registrable agreement, not registered, is in being.
If the hon. Member can produce any evidence that there is any restrictive practice between the rod makers and the Reinforcement Manufacturers' Association, I will pass that evidence on to the Registrar. But I think the responsibility lies with the company or with the hon. Member. It seems to me, looking at the company's problem, that it cannot get supplies because it is not really a user; it is not really a manufacturer, and—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes past One o'clock.